"Run the hearts"

[jillybean]

I was asked about this at the club the other day, I assume the answer is yes.

Declarer tells dummy to "Run the Hearts", is declarer then allowed to instruct dummy to stop running the hearts and make another play?

[mycroft]

"run the hearts" has been ruled to be legally equivalent to "top heart, please". Otherwise it would have to be a claim of those tricks, and that isn't technically feasible.

 

It is always a shock to the defenders when they first find that out. I find that uncomfortable, so I discourage the phrase whenever I hear it.

 

As dummy, I play the top heart and then wait for the next call. After two or three of those, declarer gets the point. But passive-aggressive education tends not to be the best way of making friends, so it's not a suggestion for others.

[LBengtsson]

I have never heard that said "run the hearts" I thought it was compulsory to name a suit and a number, that is, a card specifically. Except where dummy has a stiff card where the suit only will be ok. I have heard "Heart(or any any other suit) from the top" and that says play the top card in the suit. but there is a difference ( as I now understand "run the hearts") between "run the hearts" and "run all the hearts". so, I guess, that declarer can stop "running the hearts" whenever he likes.

 

But that could also cause confusion as dummy has been instructed to do as declarer says and might pull a card out before declarer thinks "stop" and changes his mind. so, in my mind, it is wrong to give dummy temporary control of the hand. every decision should be made by declarer, and declarer only.

[pran]

I was asked about this at the club the other day, I assume the answer is yes.

Declarer tells dummy to "Run the Hearts", is declarer then allowed to instruct dummy to stop running the hearts and make another play?

In the case of an incomplete or invalid designation, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

I believe there can be little doubt that declarer's intention in this case is to play the hearts one by one from top to bottom.

 

'Run the hearts' cannot reasonably be constructed as a claim, and so long as declarer does not claim he may at any time stop Dummy from leading another heart and instruct him to instead lead a different card.

Claim Defined

Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards

[mycroft]

Apart from the inability to sanely rule, what part of "Any statement by declarer...to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks' doesn't jive with "run the hearts" = "I'm going to take all the hearts"?

 

Actually the answer to that is in the next section: L68B1: "...a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any." But this is poor writing.

 

Having said that, "run the hearts" should be exterminated with extreme prejudice. Because it causes these problems, and it refers to a trick "other than the one currently in progress", and so *looks like* a claim.

[jillybean]

Interesting, I'd say "run the hearts" (any suit) is commonly used in North America and here in NZ and is understood and accepted as run the suit, top down. Although it is not stated like this in the laws, the SBs could have some fun with this.

 

In NA, "play a club", "a club" or simply "club" or "play" (following suit) is frequently used when designating a card from dummy. I ran afoul of some opponents here who thought it allowed dummy to designate the card. Fortunately, the director read from the law book 46 B.2 . "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated."

 

I believe it's a sign of an experienced player to use "heart", those designating both suit and denomination are seen as wasting time.

[shyams]

It's been many years since I played bridge in the club. My usual practice was to use the words "small", "top", "ruff", "low", "club", "diamond", "heart", "spade" when the lead is not in dummy. My usual practice was to designate in full when leading from dummy OR when I wanted a specific card to be played from dummy.

 

The meanings of each of those words was incontrovertible: "small" or "low" was to follow suit with the lowest available card, "top" was to follow sit with the highest available card, "ruff" was to use the lowest available trump, and any suit designation was to discard the lowest card in that suit (obviously when dummy is void in led suit). I believe that the EBU rules (EBU Blue Book?) permit such designations and specify their meaning (thus eliminating disputes on meaning).

 

The advantage is that adjacent tables don't hear the full designations of cards and consequently have a lower chance of unintentionally overhearing UI.

 

BTW, pran has addressed the question in the OP. Although I too would not use such a phrase, I know that declarer can ask dummy to stop and can change track midway through the "run the suit" procedure.

[blackshoe]

I seem to remember a WBFLC minute to the effect that "run the <suit>" is deprecated (but apparently not illegal on its face). However, in a quick run through my files I did not find that minute. Perhaps someone else can.

 

I do agree with Sven's assessment. Not a claim, declarer can stop the run at any time. But I will say that one cannot go wrong by following correct procedure as put forth in Law 46A: "declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card". I note that the use of "should" in this law means that failure to do it is an infraction of law, subject to procedural penalty, though one would rarely be given.

[shyams]

I seem to remember a WBFLC minute to the effect that "run the <suit>" is deprecated (but apparently not illegal on its face). However, in a quick run through my files I did not find that minute. Perhaps someone else can.

I am not sure the below precisely addresses your requirement.

 

The EBU White Book has this clarification -- link (https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2019-final.pdf), page no. 131. I do not know whether this was based off a WBFLC minute or was a decision made independently by the committee for specific application within the EBU.

[blackshoe]

I am not sure the below precisely addresses your requirement.

 

The EBU White Book has this clarification -- link (https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book-2019-final.pdf), page no. 131. I do not know whether this was based off a WBFLC minute or was a decision made independently by the committee for specific application within the EBU.

Close enough, thanks. The italics in your reference are a direct quote of the WBFLC minute from their meeting in Bermuda, January 12, 2000. That's what the stuff in square brackets is — a reference to the minute. The regular text below that is the EBU's clarification.

[blackshoe]

Jilly, Law 46A describes the correct procedure. Law 46B is basically a list of things players commonly do, and how such "incomplete or invalid" designations should be interpreted. Two things. The existence of Law 46B does not mean that Law 46A isn't the only correct way to designate a card from dummy — it is. And note that the instruction "run the <suit>" is not in Law 46B at all.

[pescetom]

Jilly, Law 46A describes the correct procedure. Law 46B is basically a list of things players commonly do, and how such "incomplete or invalid" designations should be interpreted. Two things. The existence of Law 46B does not mean that Law 46A isn't the only correct way to designate a card from dummy — it is.

This is of course the worst way to go about writing a law: mandating a tedious and UI vulnerable method and then making a half-hearted attempt at regulating alternative methods. No surprise that players end up thinking that the laws are not to be taken seriously.

[pescetom]

Having said that, this very poor law never seems to lead to problems in Italy. People usually just name suit, which is intended as lowest card. If they want the top card or a specific intermediate, they use rank and suit (in that order). No other instructions are common although a few will say 'ruff', which is frowned on. All in all it's a workable set of rules and certainly better than either " always suit+ rank" or "effectively anything goes".

[axman]

Interesting, I'd say "run the hearts" (any suit) is commonly used in North America and here in NZ and is understood and accepted as run the suit, top down. Although it is not stated like this in the laws, the SBs could have some fun with this.

 

In NA, "play a club", "a club" or simply "club" or "play" (following suit) is frequently used when designating a card from dummy. I ran afoul of some opponents here who thought it allowed dummy to designate the card. Fortunately, the director read from the law book 46 B.2 . "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated."

 

I believe it's a sign of an experienced player to use "heart", those designating both suit and denomination are seen as wasting time.

A sign of an experienced player is that he names clearly suit and rank when designating cards; which is a way of saying that he conforms to the law.

[shyams]

A sign of an experienced player is that he names clearly suit and rank when designating cards; which is a way of saying that he conforms to the law.

There are numerous WBF vugraph videos available on YouTube, many uploaded by Traian Chira. The table talk is often clearly captured by audio.

 

These are the most prestigious tournaments in the world. One can confidently say these players qualify as "experienced".

 

Want to guess how often they clearly name the suit and rank when designating cards?

[jillybean]

A sign of an experienced player is that he names clearly suit and rank when designating cards; which is a way of saying that he conforms to the law.

I so rarely see this, it is by far the norm to use abbreviations, or even a nod of the head.

I am not suggesting "experienced" is good or within the laws, but it is the approach most experienced players take.

[pran]

Only my general comment:

I do indeed wonder how many 'secretary birds' do realize the full consequence from the following clause within.

The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong.

They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling.

Do most serious bridge players really consider punishment for formal irregularities more important than using common sense when there is no real damage?

[pescetom]

Do most serious bridge players really consider punishment for formal irregularities more important than using common sense when there is no real damage?

 

No, of course not.

But I'm equally sure they are not happy leaving things up to common sense when the laws establish a clear procedure, and even less happy knowing that there are laws which are not even intended to be enforced.

[blackshoe]

This is of course the worst way to go about writing a law: mandating a tedious and UI vulnerable method and then making a half-hearted attempt at regulating alternative methods. No surprise that players end up thinking that the laws are not to be taken seriously.

Personally, I don't see how complying with 46A is tedious, though I can see some people arguing that it is. As for UI vulnerable, I don't see that at all. And 46B doesn't regulate alternative methods. The only legal method is in 46A. 46B tells the director how to deal with (some) deviations from the correct procedure.

[pescetom]

Personally, I don't see how complying with 46A is tedious, though I can see some people arguing that it is. As for UI vulnerable, I don't see that at all. And 46B doesn't regulate alternative methods. The only legal method is in 46A. 46B tells the director how to deal with (some) deviations from the correct procedure.

 

I do find it tedious to have to look for the rank of the lowest remaining card in a suit when I know that the actual rank makes no difference, although I concede that others may not. I am indifferent as an opponent if declarer names the rank when we both know it makes no difference, although I have noticed that many others find this irritating.

 

'UI vulnerable' has already been explained by shyams here and I think he has a point.

 

Having said that, I could live with rank + suit, so long as the law said that dummy may not play a card until both have been specified and stopped there.

 

46B may not regulate alternative methods, but it does designate exceptions that may apply, which in itself implies that dummy should accept instructions that are illegal under 46A. The things it tells director are also rather strange. They do not cover relatively common exceptions such as "ruff" or "continue" or "run the suit", as discussed in this thread. B3b (only rank, no logical suit) and B4 (not in dummy) both give perverse indications to director and B1b ('win') seems to invite/oblige dummy to memorise play and make a decision.

[blackshoe]

Dummy is not allowed to participate in the play. That doesn't mean he shouldn't pay attention to what goes on during the play. As for the rest, I don't think anything in 46B is strange or perverse*, and I have yet to see a problem involving Law 46 that I couldn't handle. <shrug>

 

* Perhaps it is both strange and perverse that 46B exists at all, but then I don't think anything a director can do will induce players who insist on ignoring 46A to change their behavior and still continue to play bridge. They're more likely to say "screw this game" and take up some other one.

[barmar]

Laws like 46B are a compromise. We would ideally like everyone to designate as specified in 46A, but there's a century of tradition of using incomplete designations, so 46B tries to accomodate this common practice. The Law that allows querying partner about a revoke when they show out of a suit is similar. Sometimes it's just not worth fighting these battles in rule-making.

[mycroft]

I would suggest that the revoke one is another "800 pound gorilla" issue. For many years, they *did* have that fight (at least for defenders) in all the enlightened countries, and had basically won it; but the ACBL players forgetting at WC events and getting penalized for it "wasn't fair" to USA teams, so the ACBL, with their 33% representation on the WBF, got it changed. Same as some of the changes to the WBF system policy that I was quite shocked at a while back (which is amusing in hindsight, because the *ACBL* now allows the same defences against their "obviously natural" 1♣ openers "that could be the shortest suit with an 18 count" that it was so unfair they had to play against at World Championships).

 

Yes, 46B is a compromise, but to my knowledge there are two players who follow 46A 100% of the time. That does not include this Secretary Bird, by the way.

 

As a side note, I remember in Curling when there were differences between similar regulations between Canada (top country by depth, even if the top team in 5 or 6 other countries can beat them on the day, their third teams can't beat Canada's 20th) and the World Curling Federation. When they forgot and took out the fourth rock, it got put back. Instead of it "not being fair", it was "preparation for world championships is to know the regulations you're playing in". Not sure why I bring that up, really.

[pran]

Laws like 46B are a compromise. We would ideally like everyone to designate as specified in 46A, but there's a century of tradition of using incomplete designations, so 46B tries to accomodate this common practice. The Law that allows querying partner about a revoke when they show out of a suit is similar. Sometimes it's just not worth fighting these battles in rule-making.

Precisely!

 

I have in my library a book titled 'Bridge, it's laws, rules and etiquette', issued in Norway in 1907. (It includes a reference to the current laws on Bridge as was revised in 1904.)

 

Quite interesting is the observation of the evolution that has taken place to the game of Bridge for centuries until the game we all know today.

 

Discoveries of undesirable effects from various laws and rules have naturally resulted in revisions, but a fundamental principle has apparently always been to preserve established traditions and avoid superfluous changes, i.e. changes to well working established routines with no benefit as such added to the game. Law 46B is a good example of this principle.

 

So the next time a declarer calls for an easily identified card without explicitly abiding by Law 46A just spend a second or two to consider if it is really worth any reaction?

[pescetom]

Precisely!

 

I have in my library a book titled 'Bridge, it's laws, rules and etiquette', issued in Norway in 1907. (It includes a reference to the current laws on Bridge as was revised in 1904.)

 

Quite interesting is the observation of the evolution that has taken place to the game of Bridge for centuries until the game we all know today.

 

Discoveries of undesirable effects from various laws and rules have naturally resulted in revisions, but a fundamental principle has apparently always been to preserve established traditions and avoid superfluous changes, i.e. changes to well working established routines with no benefit as such added to the game. Law 46B is a good example of this principle.

 

So the next time a declarer calls for an easily identified card without explicitly abiding by Law 46A just spend a second or two to consider if it is really worth any reaction?

 

Never seemed worth any reaction to me, but then our players do follow a fairly logical set of rules, which do not coincide with Law 46A.

As you say this is (or should be) a non-issue, certainly not a major issue like when it is legal to touch the ball in soccer or when a sideways movement is legitimate in a cycling sprint (I confess ignorance about the fourth stone in curling).

A cynic might argue that this is because there is no significant advantage to be gained by violating this particular law.

I still think it could and should be better.

 

BTW, was there in 1907 a law equivalent to Law 46, or even an established routine for declarer to instruct dummy? I understood that it was then normal for declarer to play the dummy himself.