[el mister]

In a club game, I sometimes hear people ask to see the cards (again) of the previous trick. ie all 4 cards are face down and they'll ask to see them again. IME everyone usually agrees - my pard asked recently and got a curt no from opps, so I wondered what the actual regulation was here.

Second question - is there anything wrong with holding your cards under the table as you play? I find this to be quite a comfortable position, but don't want to aggravate people if it's formally against the rules.

[realise this isn't a ruling question, but seemed like the best place to ask]

[Vampyr]

When a trick is quitted by all four players, people can still look their own card but cannot ask anyone else to show their card.

You can hold your cards where you want.

[el mister]

Thks vampyr. If the winner of the trick leaves their card faced for a bit, should you wait for them to turn their card over before you do so? Often see this at trick 1 where declarer might have a bit of a muse before quitting the trick.

[RunemPard]

I leave the cards under the table as well for a couple reasons. I started doing it when I was first starting to play as an attempt to conceal where I was reaching for cards and to avoid showing them to my sides. I continue to do this for the reason mentioned. I find it comfortable.

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-11, 04:20, said:

When a trick is quitted by all four players, people can still look their own card but cannot ask anyone else to show their card.

You can hold your cards where you want.

Almost correct, but

Law 66 B said:

Until, a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played.

(my Enhancements)

And I think it is courteous to leave your own played card face up with some clear indication that you are just awaiting the player who apparently wants to inspect the trick turning his card face down.

[blackshoe]

 el mister, on 2014-October-11, 04:17, said:

In a club game, I sometimes hear people ask to see the cards (again) of the previous trick. ie all 4 cards are face down and they'll ask to see them again. IME everyone usually agrees - my pard asked recently and got a curt no from opps, so I wondered what the actual regulation was here.

Second question - is there anything wrong with holding your cards under the table as you play? I find this to be quite a comfortable position, but don't want to aggravate people if it's formally against the rules.

[realise this isn't a ruling question, but seemed like the best place to ask]

It's a ruling question - you're asking what the rules are.

 el mister, on 2014-October-11, 04:43, said:

Thks vampyr. If the winner of the trick leaves their card faced for a bit, should you wait for them to turn their card over before you do so? Often see this at trick 1 where declarer might have a bit of a muse before quitting the trick.

 pran, on 2014-October-11, 07:00, said:

And I think it is courteous to leave your own played card face up with some clear indication that you are just awaiting the player who apparently wants to inspect the trick turning his card face down.

At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense). This should take some time, and nobody should be in a hurry to lead to trick two. Later in the play, "normal tempo," which varies from player to player but is usually accepted to be somewhere in the two to five second range, should be followed. If you have a problem, though, you're allowed to think. Some folks (including me) will leave their last played card face up, in the hopes that others, including whoever is leading to the next trick, will give them that time. Unfortunately, the laws don't say this must or even should happen; it is legal to lead to the next trick even if the previous trick hasn't been fully quitted, and some people do, often because they're not paying attention, sometimes because they're jerks. I agree with Sven Pran: as a matter of courtesy, if someone is thinking, let him think. If he leaves a card face up, you might as well leave yours face up as well, and turn it as soon as he turns his.

[pran]

Law 66 A said:

Current Trick
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.

Now this is a very explicit Law. It certainly overrides

Law 65 A said:

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

in that it allows any player satisfying the conditions in Law 66A to force opponents (and partner) to face their quitted cards from the last trick.

So what then is the consequence if either opponent has already led to the next trick?

Obviously nothing, the card just led is simply put on hold until the last trick is completely quitted.

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2014-October-11, 07:23, said:

It's a ruling question - you're asking what the rules are.

At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense). This should take some time, and nobody should be in a hurry to lead to trick two. Later in the play, "normal tempo," which varies from player to player but is usually accepted to be somewhere in the two to five second range, should be followed. If you have a problem, though, you're allowed to think. Some folks (including me) will leave their last played card face up, in the hopes that others, including whoever is leading to the next trick, will give them that time. Unfortunately, the laws don't say this must or even should happen; it is legal to lead to the next trick even if the previous trick hasn't been fully quitted, and some people do, often because they're not paying attention, sometimes because they're jerks. I agree with Sven Pran: as a matter of courtesy, if someone is thinking, let him think. If he leaves a card face up, you might as well leave yours face up as well, and turn it as soon as he turns his.

You say it was a rulings question, but have you given a rulings answer? Which Law says that "At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense)."?

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2014-October-11, 07:23, said:

It's a ruling question - you're asking what the rules are. At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense). This should take some time, and nobody should be in a hurry to lead to trick two. Later in the play, "normal tempo," which varies from player to player but is usually accepted to be somewhere in the two to five second range, should be followed. If you have a problem, though, you're allowed to think [SNIP]
Some folks (including me) will leave their last played card face up, in the hopes that others, including whoever is leading to the next trick, will give them that time. Unfortunately, the laws don't say this must or even should happen; it is legal to lead to the next trick even if the previous trick hasn't been fully quitted, and some people do, often because they're not paying attention, sometimes because they're jerks.

 jallerton, on 2014-October-16, 14:21, said:

You say it was a rulings question, but have you given a rulings answer? Which Law says that "At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense)."?

The rules of Bridge should mandate Blackshoe's sensible protocol. Unfortunately, if anything, they currently forbid such variations in tempo.

TLFB, L74C3 said:

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

Furthermore, the laws should delineate when the current trick ends (perhaps when players have turned over their cards) and when the next trick begins (perhaps, when a player leads to it). Currently, it's unclear how many tricks can be in simultaneous progress (IMO it should be illegal to lead to the next trick while cards are exposed from the current trick -- unless you are claiming)

[blackshoe]

 jallerton, on 2014-October-16, 14:21, said:

You say it was a rulings question, but have you given a rulings answer? Which Law says that "At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense)."?

I said it was a rulings question in response to the OP, who had suggested that perhaps his questions were not appropriate for this forum. They are. I spoke of tempo in response to el mister's and Sven Pran's posts regarding courtesy.

I suppose your implied criticism is technically correct. The OP asked what the rule is regarding asking to see quitted cards after one his quitted the trick himself. Vampyr answered that in the second post in this thread. She also answered the OP's second question, regarding whether it is legal to hold one's cards below the table. I didn't see any point in repeating her answers. I still don't.

[VixTD]

 jallerton, on 2014-October-16, 14:21, said:

Which Law says that "At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense)."?

 nige1, on 2014-October-16, 16:49, said:

The rules of Bridge should mandate Blackshoe's sensible protocol. Unfortunately, if anything, they currently forbid such variations in tempo.

Law 73D1 states

Quote

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner

but law 73A2 says

Quote

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

I don't regard a pause to take in the sight of dummy at trick one to be "undue hesitation" - it should be quite clear to everyone what the pause is due to. A player who takes time at trick one on every hand and then plays without significant pause thereafter is surely avoiding variations in tempo more than someone who sometimes thinks and sometimes plays quickly at trick one.

Law 73A2 goes on to say

Quote

But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick

and although our (English) national authority does not mandate a pause at trick one, its regulations make it clear that it is considered a normal part of the game:

Quote

WB8.73.2 A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice.
The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of their holding.

[nige1]

Tnank you, VixTd. The law seems fairly clear ...

TFLB 74C3 said:

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

TFLB 73D1 said:

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

Luckily, the law book provides an opt-out clause for dissenting local regulating authorites ....

TFLB 73A2 said:

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

The EBU has sensibly taken advantage of the WFLC get-out clause.

 VixTD, on 2014-October-17, 07:34, said:

.... although our (English) national authority does not mandate a pause at trick one, its regulations make it clear that it is considered a normal part of the game:

WB said:

A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice. The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of their holding.

Perhaps, a future WBFLC will reconsider long enough to see the merit of adopting the protocol, hinted at in the EBU white book, as normal default law.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2014-October-18, 07:52, said:

The law is fairly clear ... Luckily, the law book provides an opt-out clause for dissenting local regulating authorites .... The EBU has sensibly taken advantage of the WFLC get-out clause. Perhaps, a future WBFLC will reconsider long enough to see the merit of adopting the protocol, hinted at in the EBU white book, as normal default law.

Why should they do that when RAs already have the right to do what best suits their membership?

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-18, 07:57, said:

Why should they do that when RAs already have the right to do what best suits their membership?

The WBFLC could make a better attempt at getting it right, first time -- rather than rely on local legislators to fix mistakes and plug gaps, when and if they get round to it. IMO players would benefit from being able to rely on a singe rule-book. I fear Vampyr and I won't ever agree on this,

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2014-October-18, 08:58, said:

The WBFLC could make a better attempt at getting it right, first time -- rather than rely on local legislators to fix mistakes and plug gaps, when and if they get round to it. IMO players would benefit from being able to rely on a singe rule-book. I fear Vampyr and I won't ever agree on this,

Nigel, the word "undue" in Law 73A2 makes it crystal clear that a pause at trick one, to plan the play, is NOT the type of deviation in tempo that you are searching for. After all, a pause to plan the play is not "undue".

I have my share of complaints about the lack of clarity in the Laws, but their is no reason to complain here.

Rik

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2014-October-18, 09:37, said:

Nigel, the word "undue" in Law 73A2 makes it crystal clear that a pause at trick one, to plan the play, is NOT the type of deviation in tempo that you are searching for. After all, a pause to plan the play is not "undue". I have my share of complaints about the lack of clarity in the Laws, but their is no reason to complain here.

Quote

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

I hope Trinidad is right about WBFLC intentions. If so, their 73A2 is unclear. What do they consider to be the range of emphasis/inflexion/mannerism due to calls and plays? Anyway, It states a default rule. Then empowers regulating authorities to allow exceptions including mandatory pauses at trick one. ("But ..."). IMO, the exception should be the default.

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2014-October-18, 09:50, said:

I hope Trinidad is right about WBFLC intentions. If so, their 73A2 is unclear. What do they consider to be the range of emphasis/inflexion/mannerism due to calls and plays? Anyway, It states a default rule. Then empowers regulating authorities to allow exceptions including mandatory pauses at trick one. ("But ..."). IMO, the exception should be the default.

There is nothing unclear about Law 73A2.

To make it perfectly clear:
Allowed:
All due hesitations. (i.e. if you have a bridge reason. Planning the play of the entire hand before playing to trick 1 is a bridge reason.)

Not allowed:
All undue hesitations. (e.g. "thinking" with a singleton)

Exception to not allowed:
An RA is allowed to mandate pauses, such as the skip bid warning (lots of RAs do that) or a mandatory pause before the play at trick 1 (few RAs do that). This means that an RA is allowed to force a player to pause irrespective of whether he has a bridge reason (e.g. to prevent the transfer of UI).

I agree that mandatory pauses in some situations should be the default in the Laws, but I can understand that they aren't. If you have a club of beginners, it doesnot make any sense to force the players to pause at trick 1, because they don't understand why they should.

Rik