Something in something called the White Book
At lunch today in a cafe, I met a local player: "I nearly had to write to you ...".
They were in 3NT with at least nine tricks and instructed dummy to "run the diamonds"; when they didn't break a defender claimed a diamond trick for one off. My companion was having none of this, they weren't going to play the last diamond(s) because they knew they weren't good. The TD was called and the TD contacted @JeremyChild who gave the right ruling. "Apparently Jeremy had looked it up in something called the White Book". I did explain that I was familiar with the White Book.
(For those unfamiliar with White Book 8.46.1, the instruction to "run the diamonds" does not apply irrevocably to later tricks.)
Comments
And for anyone else unfamiliar with the White Book, it can be downloaded from the EBU website.
Fame at last! :astonished:
Whenever I'm dummy and declarer asks me to run a suit, I play one card and then stop. Declarer normally realises what's wrong at that point.
That feels contrary to Law 43A1c: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.
I thought that too, though it may just be talking at cross-purposes.
This is why the white book says: the committee deprecates instructions given to Dummy in this irregular manner
If Dummy pauses deliberately and defender follows suit on the assumption of continuation, then the card should be deemed to have been led.
Alan
Unfortunately the laws don't allow that - Declarer designates a card by naming its denomination and rank. (There are of course laws about incomplete designations). What the TD CAN do (I think) would be to award an adjusted score since there has been an infraction (of 73D if nothing else) and the other side have been damaged - as per 72C.
Dummy has varied the tempo of leading cards since he has been obeying declarer's (incorrect) edict. I am sure you have often got into a routine (even if not playing bridge) and been surprised when it is unexpectedly broken. The laws do say
"However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." which in my mind is pretty strong guidance.
If this was for example the 2nd card being led without instruction then I would be less forgiving, but if it was the fifth or sixth then I feel I have cause to apply this.
If Dummy is allowed to stop leading the suit without instruction from Declarer then he must have wrong to keep leading it in the first place. It either means 'run the suit until Declarer changes his mind,' or it has no acceptable meaning.
Alan
This is in the White Book and derives from a WBF Laws Committee meeting ...
Declarers sometimes give an instruction to Dummy to run a suit [...] 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.
[WBFLC minutes 2000-01-12#6]
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.
Peter
This is hardly a clarification. It could be taken to mean that RHO can follow the next trick without waiting for Dummy.
'Depreciation' is not a useful activity. They should either allow it or forbid it. In the latter case Dummy would not be allowed to touch the cards.
Alan
When they deprecate, they're saying you shouldn't but so many people do (and usually with no consequence), that making it a transgression would be seen as excessive.
My interpretation is that declarer hasn't named a card to the next trick, and thus dummy has to wait until a card is designated. Playing a card in that circumstance seems more like you're participating in the play as dummy (i.e. you're acting when no card has been named), than not playing a card does.
Incidentally, what should be the procedure as dummy when there's only one card that can legally be played? I tend to wait, but many players will play the card automatically, especially when time is running low in the round. (What about at trick 13?)
I always wait for declarer to specify it (even if only with a "yes please"). Declarer may be thinking about many things, and there are occasions when you don't want the card played (Declarer revoked on previous trick, not yet established; Opponents have lead out of turn and declarer is trying to decide whether to accept it...)
So what actually happens every time is...
Declarer wrongly says.. Run the suit..
Dummy wrongly keeps leading..
.. And the next player keeps accepting by playing his card
... ;)
Alan
If that's what is happening, I can't see that anyone has cause to be unhappy.The cards as being led as declarer wants and the next player is content with this as evidenced by following to the leads.
For me, i always wait for an affirmative before playing any card, singleton or otherwise.
I found the previous discussion fairly clear. As a defender, you are playing at your own risk if you do not wait for the card to be played from dummy. But if dummy plays the next card in the suit, on the basis of declarer's earlier request to run the suit, then the defender is OK to follow to this trick since dummy's card will now be deemed to be played.
Is it not declarers designation that makes a card played, not dummy action? Should dummy play a different card than what declarer calls for, then it is the called for card that is played. If we are saying that 'Run the Diamonds' is sufficient for dummy to play the Jack, then surely the Jack is already called for and there is no need for the defender to wait for dummy to pull that card out before playing their card (tempo issues not withstanding)?
Isn't that what the WBFLC minute in the White Book says:
That's not how I interpreted this. I read this as
I don't read this as saying the declarer's RHO can play before dummy has actually played the next card in the suit.
Law 45D states
D. Dummy Picks up a Non‐designated Card
1. If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16C.)
Since this law has been in force sine at least 1997, one wonders why it has not been amended in view of the WBF minute
I agree with Frances too, especially as Gordon does.
My personal feeling is that if declarer is careless enough to call for "run the suit" when the suit is not solid, he has given specific instructions to dummy to play the suit from the top down and should only be allowed to change his mind BEFORE dummy has played to a given trick (if then), but the laws are quite clear that RHO needs to have followed. (The law seems pretty lenient here compared to the situation where declarer says "Queen, sorry Ace" when LHO plays the King under a tenace position).
An incitement for RHO to play quickly when holding Jxxx or suspecting partner does so!
Personally I have never said to dummy "run the such-and-such" and never will, and would recommend the same practice to all partners and director-callers.
The correct way to request a suit to be run is to call for the top card in the suit over and over again. "Top club, top club, top club…" would be my normal method (although you could call the cards by rank if you wanted to). That makes it clear that the opponents can't claim you specified the card in advance, because you didn't.
That said, I still don't agree with declarer being able to designate a card to be played to a trick other than the current trick. Saying "run the clubs" is the same sort of thing as saying "3 of spades, also play the 5 of diamonds to the next trick", and that seems pretty similar in nature to leading out of turn.
A thought experiment: declarer holds the Ace of Clubs singleton, dummy holds KQJTxx of clubs. The lead is in dummy, and declarer says "run the clubs". Is dummy forced to attempt lead the Queen of Clubs out of turn to the next trick? If so, can declarer's RHO accept this (say because they have a trump that declarer forgot was outstanding)?
My issue with this comes with the "dummy has actually played the next card". As others point out, Declarer plays dummy cards by naming them; dummy has no role in this.
The WBFLC is helpful in that it tells us when the second and subsequent cards from dummy become played cards and thus cannot be changed. In doing this it gives control of this moment to declarers RHO! That they deprecate the practice of saying "run the clubs" is clear. Maybe there was even an element of punishment intended for declarers putting some of dummy cards in to a sort of limbo state between played and not played.