[bluejak]

Until you have turned your card face down you may ask to see the other cards. If you wish to think then you ask them to remain face up. Since you have not turned your card face down the trick has not been quitted and no-one should lead a card to the next trick.

If players refuse to leave their cards face up the TD will make sure that they do.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-03, 22:08, said:

Since you have not turned your card face down the trick has not been quitted and no-one should lead a card to the next trick.

That's certainly how things are done in a civilised game, and I think it should be what the rules say too, but is it?

[bluejak]

Yes.

If you can find me a Law which allows someone to lead while the previous trick is unquitted I shall apologise.

[blackshoe]

There is no specific allowance. There is also no specific prohibition.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 08:57, said:

If you can find me a Law which allows someone to lead while the previous trick is unquitted I shall apologise.

44B, 44G and 44A?

[bluejak]

None of those do.

Mind you, I had difficulty finding 44A because of your cunning ordering.

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 08:57, said:

If you can find me a Law which allows someone to lead while the previous trick is unquitted I shall apologise.

 gnasher, on 2011-October-04, 09:30, said:

44B, 44G and 44A?

 bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 09:37, said:

None of those do.

Can he pick 3 more numbers at random, now?

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2011-October-04, 09:30, said:

44B, 44G and 44A?

But 65A defines a completed trick. I don't think it is too far a stretch to say that it is implicit in the Laws that a trick may not be started until the previous one is completed.

It is also not in the Laws that a player may not spread glue on the face of each card before returning them to the board. Is it really fruitful to discuss whether something is allowed when it is something that no one would think of doing anyway?

[mycroft]

Specifically, if the person flips his card over "for a millisecond" - and yes, I know people who do that, because they're irritated enough that I want to think about this trick, or haven't figured it out yet, so they feel it's okay to show their irritation then - I will continue to ask until I've seen the card for long enough that I can work out, and remember when they're turned over again, what happened. After the third or fourth time I ask to see the cards, they usually get it.

What, passive-aggressive, me?

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2011-October-04, 10:41, said:

if the person flips his card over "for a millisecond" - and yes, I know people who do that

Some people are claiming, though, that this is permitted, and I am sure that it is not.

On a related topic -- suppose the other three players have turned over their cards, and South, who has not turned his, asks to see them again. Is East, who had initially quitted his card, now allowed to see the cards for as long as he needs?

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2011-October-04, 10:10, said:

It is also not in the Laws that a player may not spread glue on the face of each card before returning them to the board. Is it really fruitful to discuss whether something is allowed when it is something that no one would think of doing anyway?

People often lead to the next trick whilst I'm still looking at the current one. Maybe it's the scary/non-scary thing again.

[jillybean]

Hmm, not the quick, simple question I thought it would be but atleast now I'm confident that I do have the right to both think and see the cards played before quitting the trick.

[Cascade]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-03, 22:08, said:

Until you have turned your card face down you may ask to see the other cards. If you wish to think then you ask them to remain face up. Since you have not turned your card face down the trick has not been quitted and no-one should lead a card to the next trick.

If players refuse to leave their cards face up the TD will make sure that they do.

Significantly David quotes no laws to back up these statements. That is because there is no law that says one must keep one's card face up. There is a law that says one must turn it face down.

I suppose if I turn it down the player can ask for it to be turned up again but there is nothing preventing me from turning it face down.

There is also no law that states one is allowed to use this mechanism as a way to buy time to think.

There is a law that indicates the immediacy of turning one's card down. At what time should this be done? When four cards have been played to the trick.

There is also a law that says that the player on lead should strive to play in a normal tempo.

There is no law that says that the player on lead needs to wait until any other player has turned their card face down.

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2011-October-04, 10:52, said:

On a related topic -- suppose the other three players have turned over their cards, and South, who has not turned his, asks to see them again. Is East, who had initially quitted his card, now allowed to see the cards for as long as he needs?

I would say not. If they take advantage of declarer to catch it, fine. If not, that was their problem when *they* turned their card over - the first time.

I have been known, as declarer, if certain opponents ask to see my card, to show it to them - angled so that their partner, who has turned over her card, can't see it. Especially if I know their lowest, encouraging, card is the 7 they played...

[Cascade]

 Vampyr, on 2011-October-04, 10:10, said:

But 65A defines a completed trick.

It defines correct procedure. That procedure includes turning one's card face down "when" all four players have played to the trick not at some significantly later time.

[AlexJonson]

 mycroft, on 2011-October-04, 13:34, said:

I would say not. If they take advantage of declarer to catch it, fine. If not, that was their problem when *they* turned their card over - the first time.

I have been known, as declarer, if certain opponents ask to see my card, to show it to them - angled so that their partner, who has turned over her card, can't see it. Especially if I know their lowest, encouraging, card is the 7 they played...

I have always played that my cards appear flat on the card table at all relevant times (ie excluding times indicated correctly by Cascade).

I am stunned by this post from you.

[mycroft]

So what do *you* do, Alex, when it's clear that the only reason RHO's asking to see the card is so that partner understands his signal? Or do your opponents never do that?

[pran]

 mycroft, on 2011-October-04, 13:34, said:

[...]
I have been known, as declarer, if certain opponents ask to see my card, to show it to them - angled so that their partner, who has turned over her card, can't see it. Especially if I know their lowest, encouraging, card is the 7 they played...

If a player legally asks to see your card then your practise is a deliberate violation of Law 66A which says:

So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. (My enhancement)

[blackshoe]

 Cascade, on 2011-October-04, 13:26, said:

Significantly David quotes no laws to back up these statements. That is because there is no law that says one must keep one's card face up. There is a law that says one must turn it face down.

No, there isn't. There is a law that says that after four cards have been played to a trick (and so presumably not before that) each player turns his card face down. There is a legal difference between "turns" and "must turn".

[Cascade]

 blackshoe, on 2011-October-04, 16:31, said:

No, there isn't. There is a law that says that after four cards have been played to a trick (and so presumably not before that) each player turns his card face down. There is a legal difference between "turns" and "must turn".

There is the former establishes correct procedure while not suggesting a penalty when it is not followed. The later would be a very serious matter indeed when not followed.

Your paraphrase of the law subtly but significantly changes the wording in the law from "when" to "after". To me when specifies more precisely the moment at which the action should take place.