No additional information.

From the rulebook:

Players are free to talk between rounds, but may not communicate from the time the cards are dealt until after the final trick of the round is played.

--
Would you please care to elaborate from your perspective, please?

The way I see the game implemented right now, there is no talking window between players possible.

Scenarios 4 and 5 are hard enough with communication. Removing it makes them extremely difficult which does harm to the enjoyment of the game.

I'm not sure you are understanding my point of view or my issue with this implementation. I think that your job is fantastic, but it's really frustrating to see it as a passable implementation instead of one that could have been perfect. I understand your reluctance, but it's a real shame that we don't really have an option that could be toggled with this pause.

<i>the intention is preventing players from leaking the private info, not enforcing a vow of silence for the entire game.</i>

The thing is that a vital part of this game is making a plan during rounds. The plan has to be made before the cards are dealt/seen, as knowing your hand beforehand gives way to leaking the private info. It's not the same telling the other player "we have to try to move here, avoid this and end up here" having the cards DEALT and SEEN just before the exchange, than without having them dealt. If there's no info to be leaked, there's no leak possible.

Right now the only window of talking /making plans is:
- Responding to a player's fourth trick, when the partner knows that the round is over.
· If both players are at the 3rd trick, the player starting the 4th can initiate the talk.
· If second player hasn't taken the 3rd trick, the player initiating its 4th has to wait for the player starting the 4th to initiate the talk. If the second player doesn't initiate the talk and loses the trick, the game automatically starts the next round with the CARDS dealt, so the making plan parts without leaking info is unavailable. Having to rely on the second player being aware of that game state and ask the other player if there's something they are willing to say, it's definitely not the ideal for this game.

As for your second statement, I think that catering for a majority that doesn't really represent the people who truly this game is aimed for it's like refusing to meet accessibility needs for people that need them who doesn't represent the majority. Us co-op players that like to make plans beforehand, speak the same languages as our partners, and have the experience to talk with our partners are also a part of the community and I don't think that we should be treated with inequality.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time reading this, and thank you for the implementation.