[blackshoe]

Axman: read the Introduction to the Laws regarding the meanings of various words.

Agree with Sven that correct procedure is to object when someone leads to the next trick before all four cards are quitted on the current trick. Correct procedure in objecting is one (or two) word(s): "Director(, please).

[barmar]

 axman, on 2016-May-28, 11:05, said:

Parsing the law:

44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick
The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won.

Says [after the first trick] that whoever leads to a trick won the previous trick.

Say what?? There is a difference between the winner of a trick has the right to lead to the next trick, and, defining the leader to a trick as the winner of the previous trick.

It's clearly intended as "the hand in which the last trick was one makes the lead to the next trick." It would be clearer if they had written "is made from" instead of just "is".

This is so well known to all bridge players (it's probably the same in all games in the trick-taking family that descended from whist), I can't imagine anyone other than SB trying to get away with parsing it as anything other than what we all know it to mean.

[pran]

 axman, on 2016-May-28, 11:05, said:

Parsing the law:

44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick
The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won.

Says [after the first trick] that whoever leads to a trick won the previous trick.

Say what?? There is a difference between the winner of a trick has the right to lead to the next trick, and, defining the leader to a trick as the winner of the previous trick.

Also notable:

LAW 65A. Completed Trick
When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

65A requires cards to be quitted immediately after four cards have been played [it seems possible that one player might play more than one card to a trick, perhaps in order to correct revoke]. However, it does not follow that not waiting for the quitting nullifies play to the next trick.

Even if a player leads or plays a card that must win a trick in progress, the winner of that trick is not formally determined until each player has contributed one card to that trick (Laws 44B and 44E or 44F).

Technically a card is an exposed card (Laws 48 or 49) if it is led to the next trick before the prescribed procedures in Laws 44 and 65 have been followed.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2016-May-27, 17:10, said:

This sort of thing was discussed some time ago. A lot of people feel that there is no legal requirement that player must wait until the current trick is quitted before playing to the next one. I think that this should be made explicit in next year's version.

 gordontd, on 2016-May-28, 01:05, said:

A lot? I can only recall one person.

Might be me I suggested that, unless you are claiming, it should be illegal for you to lead to the next trick until all players quit the current trick. It would simplify the game for players but deprive directors of intriguing cases

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2016-May-29, 13:54, said:

Might be me I suggested that, unless you are claiming, it should be illegal for you to lead to the next trick until all players quit the current trick. It would simplify the game for players but deprive directors of intriguing cases

LOL ummmm....

[gordontd]

 nige1, on 2016-May-29, 13:54, said:

Might be me I suggested that, unless you are claiming, it should be illegal for you to lead to the next trick until all players quit the current trick. It would simplify the game for players but deprive directors of intriguing cases

Don't think it was you, especially since your comment above appears to be arguing for the opposite of what Stefanie said. Or perhaps, in your haste to bang the drum, you didn't bother to read it before replying?

[nige1]

 gordontd, on 2016-May-30, 00:35, said:

Don't think it was you, especially since your comment above appears to be arguing for the opposite of what Stefanie said. Or perhaps, in your haste to bang the drum, you didn't bother to read it before replying?

I did read Vampyr's post. Anyway, I'm pleased that more than one person would like to see the law clarified on this matter.