Declarer changing instructions

[newmoon]

This occurred last Saturday in a club Pairs event.

 

Declarer, in 3NT, is in dummy and states “run the diamonds from the top.”

 

After the third diamond she realises they don’t break, and before playing

the fourth diamond, she says “no more diamonds, play the spade.”

 

"Director" the opponents called.

 

What should happen now?

[RMB1]

... “run the diamonds from the top.”

 

After the third diamond she realises they don’t break, and before playing the fourth diamond, she says “no more diamonds, play the spade.”

 

The WBF law commission have said that declarer can stop playing the suit at any stage: in this case, she can play a spade as long as RHO has not played to the fourth diamond.

Edited February 23, 2015 by RMB1

[barmar]

RMB1, did you mean to add something when you replied to your own post?

[axman]

The WBF law commission have said that declarer can stop playing the suit at any stage: in this case, she can play a spade as long as RHO has not played to the fourth diamond.

 

Certainly the WBFLC statement is contrary to law. Declarer has stated they are taking all those diamond tricks and that conforms to what L68 defines as a claim- and all that comes with it.

[gnasher]

Certainly the WBFLC statement is contrary to law. Declarer has stated they are taking all those diamond tricks and that conforms to what L68 defines as a claim- and all that comes with it.

No, declarer has merely instructed dummy to play all those diamonds. He hasn't explicitly stated how many of them are going to win.

[whereagles]

What should happen is that nothing should happen :)

 

(gawd... naive set theory is such a mix-up lol)

[helene_t]

No, declarer has merely instructed dummy to play all those diamonds. He hasn't explicitly stated how many of them are going to win.

Nor has he stated anything about what happens after the diamonds have been played.

[axman]

Nor has he stated anything about what happens after the diamonds have been played.

 

That is impertinent and obtuse.

 

As to relevant matters: L68A Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

 

 

'run the diamonds from the top' is a bridge euphemism for play from the top and win all the diamonds. That answers the question as to the specific number of tricks.

 

As to other relevant matters: L68D After any claim or concession, play ceases....

 

regards

axman

[barmar]

'run the diamonds from the top' is a bridge euphemism for play from the top and win all the diamonds. That answers the question as to the specific number of tricks.

That's not how it's interpreted. It's considered a shortcut for designating the cards that dummy should play -- instead of saying "top heart" every trick, it's equivalent to saying that until you explicitly cancel the instruction.

 

Perhaps better wording would be "Start running the hearts from the top", but established practice is what it is.

[gordontd]

'run the diamonds from the top' is a bridge euphemism for play from the top and win all the diamonds. That answers the question as to the specific number of tricks.

Unless you also think it means '...and no more tricks' then it doesn't state a specific number of tricks. If you think it does mean that, you're putting a lot of words into declarer's mouth.

[whereagles]

Declarer's intention was clearly to cash a few diamonds to see how they behave. I fail to see any irregularity.

[helene_t]

OK, so when I ask dummy to play the ace of trumps I have claimed that trick and hence play ceases?

[aguahombre]

The protocol for this situation has long been established, and is as stated by Gnasher, Rmb1, Barmar, and Whereagles.

 

It is not a claim because the powers that be say it is not a claim. It is an instruction to Dummy which may be halted. However, the onus is on Declarer to stop the "running" in a timely manner because he has technically called for a card to be played from dummy. And whether Dummy has actually pulled that card or not, it would be/should be too late if next person has played to that trick.

[chrism]

As to relevant matters: L68A Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

 

 

'run the diamonds from the top' is a bridge euphemism for play from the top and win all the diamonds. That answers the question as to the specific number of tricks.

 

Even if this were an assertion that all the diamonds are winning tricks (which it certainly need not be - declarer might well intend running the suit until opponents ruff in with a high trump, for example), it is not a statement that all and only the diamonds are winners, so there is no statement of a specific number of tricks. To interpret declarer's instruction as a claim is a perverse misinterpretation of the law, that I doubt even SB would try to justify.

[aguahombre]

To interpret declarer's instruction as a claim is a perverse misinterpretation of the law, that I doubt even SB would try to justify.

Have you met Paul Lamford yet? :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

Declarer's intention was clearly to cash a few diamonds to see how they behave. I fail to see any irregularity.

The irregularity is in the way declarer gave his instructions to dummy. It's a violation of Law 46A, so not just an irregularity, it's an infraction.

[mycroft]

"run the diamonds" means "play the top diamond." That's all it can mean, without "referring to a trick not in progress". Yes, I know that doesn't make sense - neither does any other interpretation of this, really.

 

What it means in practise is "I intend to play all the diamonds, but I reserve the right to stop if it turns out I miscalculated and they aren't all good, or I miscalculated and I can't afford to squeeze myself, or I've managed to dupe the defenders into miscalculating and giving me another winning option because they were expecting to *have to* make 6 pitches, or ..."

 

I don't like that - mostly because if you tell me you're playing the next 6 tricks as diamonds, I should be able to make my next 6 plays in any order - or at the same time, for that matter! But that's the way we interpret it, currently, and so I don't "run the diamonds" and don't accept "run the diamonds" from partner; and am *very* careful as a defender. But I know the interpretation; many don't, and they get no recourse, and that seems to me to be unfair.

 

I'd be happy if we interpreted "run the diamonds" as irrevocable; after a couple of gripes, players would stop doing this illegal and improper thing, and just call the card each time. But because there is no downside to declarer to doing this wrong thing, it spreads like a weed.

 

On the other hand, I'm an eternal optimist; it's only been 20 years since "you don't have to Announce 15-17 NTs any more" has been around, and that shibboleth isn't going away...

[Pig Trader]

Law 46: “Run the clubs”

[WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#6]

Declarers sometimes give an instruction to Dummy to run a suit and then leave him to do this without giving, as is procedurally correct, a separate instruction for each card. A question can arise as to when the second, or a later, card is played from dummy, since the Declarer is not able to stop play of the card once it is played. The Committee ruled that the card is deemed to be played when Declarer’s RHO follows to the trick.

However, the committee deprecates instructions given to Dummy in this irregular manner.

 

EBU White Book:

 

Suppose declarer instructs dummy to “run the clubs”. Declarer may change this instruction at a later trick, and a card from dummy may be changed until declarer’s RHO plays to the trick. At this point the card becomes played.

________________

 

Mycroft:

 

I don't like that - mostly because if you tell me you're playing the next 6 tricks as diamonds, I should be able to make my next 6 plays in any order - or at the same time, for that matter! But that's the way we interpret it, currently, and so I don't "run the diamonds" and don't accept "run the diamonds" from partner; and am *very* careful as a defender. But I know the interpretation; many don't, and they get no recourse, and that seems to me to be unfair.

 

There is a solution to that and I recollect that the relevant Law is 73F. If a defender can claim that he has been misled by a declarer "running" a suit (and who then stops running it) then an adjusted score can be awarded. But such a situation must be extremely rare and I have never heard of a TD call over such a thing, let alone any actual ruling of any adjustment.

[blackshoe]

I am coming to the conclusion that this should be an infraction of a "should" law for which the director should be more inclined than usual to issue a PP. Better would be to change the wording of 46A to "shall" rather than "should".

[aguahombre]

I am coming to the conclusion that this should be an infraction of a "should" law for which the director should be more inclined than usual to issue a PP. Better would be to change the wording of 46A to "shall" rather than "should".

You would be hard-pressed to justify a procedural penalty for a procedure directly addressed, expected, and covered in a WBF minute, and thus sanctioned there as well as in the British White Book.

[blackshoe]

The law book gives me sufficient justification, I think.

[helene_t]

Playing kitchen bridge as a child, I would play all the winners at the same time. This served a didactic purpose because we were in the process of learning count signals. Obv this only makes sense if the defender as well as declarer could follow suit throughout. So you probably have the agreement that if declarer says "run the diamonds" and you have fewer diamonds than dummy, you give some other signal? Or just give count because partner's discards may depend on your count?

 

Back to the topic. I think the practice is very bad. When declarer starts running a long suit I sometimes give a clear sp signal by discarding an honour which I will have to discard later anyway. I don't want that decision, nor partners interpretation of my signal, to depend on declarers musings. And then there's the issue when I follow suit to a trick in the same instant as declarer cancels the instruction and we are not sure if I played out of turn. This actually sometimes happens when we are in a rush.

[barmar]

Back to the topic. I think the practice is very bad. When declarer starts running a long suit I sometimes give a clear sp signal by discarding an honour which I will have to discard later anyway. I don't want that decision, nor partners interpretation of my signal, to depend on declarers musings. And then there's the issue when I follow suit to a trick in the same instant as declarer cancels the instruction and we are not sure if I played out of turn. This actually sometimes happens when we are in a rush.

Hopefully if there's a tie like this, the TD will adjudicate in favor of the defender. While we may grudgingly allow this practice even though it's technically a law violation, declarer should rarely be able to win disputes that arise from it.

 

Are people suggesting that saying "Run the suit" could be a violation of 73D2, as it may mislead a defender into thinking that the suit is all good? But I guess the WBFLC minute, which implies that it's just a provisional instruction, means that we shouldn't make this inference.

[Zelandakh]

After such a designation, what happens if a defender plays a card to a trick after declarer has told dummy to change the played card but before dummy has removed it from the played position? They get to change their play without penalty and declarer has UI, right? So if declarer does do this, just discard that 2-way finesse honour from your hand without noticing the change in designation and you are covered - easy game! ;) :ph34r:

[BudH]

After such a designation, what happens if a defender plays a card to a trick after declarer has told dummy to change the played card but before dummy has removed it from the played position? They get to change their play without penalty and declarer has UI, right? So if declarer does do this, just discard that 2-way finesse honour from your hand without noticing the change in designation and you are covered - easy game! ;) :ph34r:

 

Yet another situation dependent on when dummy's card verbally called by declarer is deemed played....