Play from the top, please

[phil7]

Declarer called for dummy to play a suit AKQJxx 'from the top'.

When one opponent showed out, which meant that the other opponent would win the fifth trick, she said 'Stop at the Jack'.

My partner objected, insisting that she should continue to play the suit as it had been 'called'.

The TD on the night allowed the change, but other TDs disagreed.

I cannot find anything in the Laws about this specifically. Any views?

[PeterAlan]

The WBF's Laws Committee has considered this:

 

6. Being aware that 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.

It's implicit in the wording "since the Declarer is not able to stop play of the card once it is played" that the Declarer can do so before it is played, even if (s)he has previously given the deprecated instruction to run the suit.

 

You don't give your jurisdiction, but EBU's White Book 2019 explicitly addresses it:

 

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.

[pescetom]

Declarer called for dummy to play a suit AKQJxx 'from the top'.

When one opponent showed out, which meant that the other opponent would win the fifth trick, she said 'Stop at the Jack'.

My partner objected, insisting that she should continue to play the suit as it had been 'called'.

 

As Director I would uphold an objection to the deprecable practice per se, but not to an instruction to stop, particularly if it was as timely and clear as in this case ('Stop at the Jack').

Luckily this practice is quite rare here, but as a player I've seen cases where the dummy will sometimes or always look to declarer for a nod of confirmation before playing the next card, engendering the suspicion that dummy may play some part in deciding whether and when to stop.

[blackshoe]

I find that the best policy is to follow law 46A and call a card by naming its rank and denomination.

[pescetom]

I find that the best policy is to follow law 46A and call a card by naming its rank and denomination.

 

My partner thinks so too, but it is tiresome for declarer and gets under some people's skin.

I prefer some reasonable compromise but backed up by a clear law with no "illegal but tolerated" clauses.

[gordontd]

I find that the best policy is to follow law 46A and call a card by naming its rank and denomination.

The problem with this is the amount of extraneous information it makes available.

[pescetom]

The problem with this is the amount of extraneous information it makes available.

 

If I say "the three of spades" rather than "spades" or "follow" or whatever, where is the extraneous information?

The only two problems I see are stress for declarer (especially with sight problems) and the fact that it is customary to demoninate rank then suit rather than vice versa.

[mikestar13]

Could an instruction pertaining to multiple tricks (with the implied assertion they will be won), for example "run the clubs", be held to constitute a claim under 68A?

[helene_t]

The problem with this is the amount of extraneous information it makes available.

I am probably being thick, but I don't follow.

 

Are we talking about declarer naming a card? And that the way he names it gives EI to defenders? The only thing I can think of is that stating the intention to run the entire suit gives EI to defenders - for example, they can infer that he won't be squeezing himself. This would suggest that it is better to name the cards one by one. Isn't that what Ed recommends?

[gordontd]

I am probably being thick, but I don't follow.

 

Are we talking about declarer naming a card? And that the way he names it gives EI to defenders? The only thing I can think of is that stating the intention to run the entire suit gives EI to defenders - for example, they can infer that he won't be squeezing himself. This would suggest that it is better to name the cards one by one. Isn't that what Ed recommends?

It gives EI to the rest of the room.

[mikestar13]

My partner thinks so too, but it is tiresome for declarer and gets under some people's skin.

I prefer some reasonable compromise but backed up by a clear law with no "illegal but tolerated" clauses.

 

I agree with you. I have tried strict compliance with 46A and it doesn't bother me nor has it bothered a regular partner, but opponents and pickup partners are annoyed more often than not. This is the compromise I've used:

1) When following suit, I name the rank only, no confusion as I can't be calling for dummy to revoke.2) When leading I name rank and suit.3) When ruffing, I say ruff with X rather than X of (trump suit)4) When leading trumps, I say X of trumps rather than X of (trump suit)5) When I want the highest or lowest card of a suit, I say high or low rather than the rank.

Objective: sound as much as possible like a regular player rather than a Secretary Bird, while still designating cards unambiguously.

 

[helene_t]

It gives EI to the rest of the room.

Ah right, of course.

 

Somewhat off-topic, I have wondered if people actually hear table chat to the extent that they can make use of it. Sometimes an experienced partner has given me a sign to shut up if I said something like "we could make six diamonds" or "it only goes down on a spade lead", and then I feel very stupid. But for some reason I have never heard anything from other tables that made any sense bridgewise, except when someone is rude ("WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE ME A CLUB RUFF?", for example). Presumably I automatically filter out all noise from other tables in order to focus on my own play (even during the post-mortem). The anecdote about Terry Reese and the naked woman comes to mind. Maybe it is because I score high on autism tests, I also don't notice gossip at the office for example. But I think that playing bridge amplifies this. It can be difficult not to take advantage of UI from partner's vibrations, but somehow EI from other tables doesn't penetrate.

[pescetom]

It gives EI to the rest of the room.

 

I hadn't thought about that, even though I realise that I am less "furbo" than many in the room.

Maybe they had it right a century ago then.

[blackshoe]

It gives EI to the rest of the room.

The only reasonable way to avoid that, as far as I can see, is to require declarer to manually play dummy's cards, without saying a word. That may be a desirable change to the laws, but it is not current law, while the procedure I recommend is correct procedure currently. Folks at the other tables are just going to have to live with it.

 

It does occur to me that if this is really a significant problem, your tables are probably too close together. B-)

[pescetom]

The only reasonable way to avoid that, as far as I can see, is to require declarer to manually play dummy's cards, without saying a word. That may be a desirable change to the laws, but it is not current law, while the procedure I recommend is correct procedure currently. Folks at the other tables are just going to have to live with it.

 

It does occur to me that if this is really a significant problem, your tables are probably too close together. B-)

 

Speaking for us, none of our tables are within 2.5m, 5m in order of Mitchell movement at maximum room capacity, but leakage of final contracts does still seem to occur. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised if someone could hear and memorise the declarer calling for the King of Spades.

 

Returning to manual play of dummy would be no real problem, but also somewhat academic I think. The solutions are better behaviour/ethics and/or online play, the latter being inevitable in the medium term anyway.

[helene_t]

Just a thought: shouldn't players be encouraged to switcheroo the boards so that anyone who heard "I should have led a spade" or "nice diamond suit, partner!" won't know which hand it is, even if they recognize the voice?

 

OK, probably the cure is worse than the disease.

[Gerardo]

Just a thought: shouldn't players be encouraged to switcheroo the boards so that anyone who heard "I should have led a spade" or "nice diamond suit, partner!" won't know which hand it is, even if they recognize the voice?

 

OK, probably the cure is worse than the disease.

 

Once I overheard "I knew it was 6-6 from experienced declarer at a nearby table, to her sister, a newbie player. Boards duplicated across the room, 7 board rounds. So, in the last board of the round, had to call the TD, and reshuffle the board.

[jhenrikj]

Could an instruction pertaining to multiple tricks (with the implied assertion they will be won), for example "run the clubs", be held to constitute a claim under 68A?

 

No not normally, the declarer is not suggesting the play to be curtailed. He is intending the play to continue after this tricks.

[gordontd]

Just a thought: shouldn't players be encouraged to switcheroo the boards so that anyone who heard "I should have led a spade" or "nice diamond suit, partner!" won't know which hand it is, even if they recognize the voice?

 

OK, probably the cure is worse than the disease.

We do this when playing barometer pairs and find it does help. It means that if you hear something from a nearby table, it's unlikely to be about the hand in progress and without that context the significance of a random comment is less likely to be obvious.

[barmar]

Could an instruction pertaining to multiple tricks (with the implied assertion they will be won), for example "run the clubs", be held to constitute a claim under 68A?

No, because it doesn't claim a specific total number of tricks.

 

I admit that the definition of claim in L68 doesn't actually contain the word "total". But since claiming also involves curtailing play, I think it's implied that you have to be claiming the entire number of tricks. It wouldn't make sense to call running a suit a claim when you still need to play other suits afterward.

[blackshoe]

But since claiming also involves curtailing play, I think it's implied that you have to be claiming the entire number of tricks. It wouldn't make sense to call running a suit a claim when you still need to play other suits afterward.

Well, there's "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any" (Law 68B1). I do agree that "play from the top" doesn't necessarily claim any tricks — after all, the top card might get ruffed. :-) And it may also be true that the last card(s) in the suit might fail to win the trick. But I think this potential bone of contention is why the WBFLC deprecates the practice.

[pescetom]

Well, there's "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any" (Law 68B1). I do agree that "play from the top" doesn't necessarily claim any tricks — after all, the top card might get ruffed. :-) And it may also be true that the last card(s) in the suit might fail to win the trick. But I think this potential bone of contention is why the WBFLC deprecates the practice.

 

I don't think that is the bone of contention. I imagine that WBFLC deprecates the practice because it violates (the already laissez faire) Law 46 and implicitly involves dummy in the choice of card to play.

[blackshoe]

Well, yes, but I don't see a bone of contention there. Except perhaps for those who think "I've always done it this way and I'm damned if I'm going to let some bureaucrat tell me how to play cards from dummy".

[pran]

Well, yes, but I don't see a bone of contention there. Except perhaps for those who think "I've always done it this way and I'm damned if I'm going to let some bureaucrat tell me how to play cards from dummy".

I think this has always been a major issue during the various law changes since the first official international law was issued in 1936 (as a compromise between American and English interests).

 

Every law change since then bears the signs of careful evolution rather than dramatic revolution.

 

So yes, I believe that for instance Law 46 is there to protect existing habits whenever possible without creating conflicts within the laws.

[dsLawsd]

Perhaps the Laws should be rewritten for greater clarity?

 

And when extraneous info is overhead the Laws do REQUIRE said individual to call the Director and let the official decide what to do. Of course, the timing is always a concern since the player may not know he heard UI until they pick up their hand ,,,

 

A sloppy declarer (depends on their level of experience/expertise)

should not be allowed to profit- as to whether they can change courses or whether a Procedural penalty issue might be up for discussion.