I agree that a subsequent card in the suit should be deemed to be played only when it has been placed in the played position and the next defender has played.
(I just don't think that is what the minute says. The laws and the WBFLC seem at times to be in two minds as to when a card from dummy is played: either when it is named; or when it is named and put in the played position.)
@mikeindex said:
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.
Quite so, but declarer's instruction to run the clubs affords the defence the information that declarer's current intention is to run the suit (or even that he thinks it will run even if it won't). That doesn't do them any harm.
Even though the instruction is interpreted to mean "run the clubs unless and until I tell you not to at a later trick", I think it is sensible to cater to the fact that some players are inclined to give instructions of that sort (by specifying when the subsequent cards are deemed played), as opposed to adopting a Wolffian "penalise it out existence" attitude. Generally such an instruction does no real harm and doesn't deserve a harsh response.
@ais523 said:
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)?
No, any more than if a defender ruffs with an unexpected trump. Perhaps the real interpretation is "run the clubs unless and until I tell you not to at a later trick and/or you are not on lead".
@ais523 said:
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)?
No, any more than if a defender ruffs with an unexpected trump. Perhaps the real interpretation is "run the clubs unless and until I tell you not to at a later trick and/or you are not on lead".
That effectively means that the dummy is gaining discretion (in how long to wait for declarer to tell them not to). Something like "run the clubs, but wait 3 seconds before each card is played so that I can cancel this request" might be plausible, but the interpretation you're offering is too ambiguous.
Perhaps this is a comparable situation to declarer saying "play anything", which allows either opponent to designate a card (in this situation, the equivalent would be "forcing" dummy to decide "that's enough waiting, I'm going to play this")? (Note that this is different from the "dummy plays out of turn" interpretation, where only declarer's RHO could accept the lead.)
The other alternative is for dummy to always wait until declarer makes some positive motion to request that dummy plays the next card in the run of the suit, which seems to solve all the problems.
The other alternative is for dummy to always wait until declarer makes some positive motion to request that dummy plays the next card in the run of the suit, which seems to solve all the problems.
Yep - unless declarer is just waiting for dummy to play the next card (being unaware that he hasn't called for a card to be played).
It's one of these things where players have been brought up with bad habits and can't get rid of them. I think we just have to live with this and resolve problems as best as we can when they arrive.
I was reading an appeals case from the ACBL which is pretty relevant to this thread.
Declarer in a notrumps contract says "run the diamonds", then calls for a diamond explicitly on the next round anyway. The round after that, declarer's RHO is out, but forgets to turn the card from the previous trick face-down. Declarer tells the RHO to turn the card over, but the RHO mishears this, assumes that dummy has played a diamond, and thus discards a heart (face up, with declarer's LHO seeing it).
Declarer then rejects the "lead out of turn", causing the discarded heart to become a penalty card, and instead of continuing to run the diamonds, plays clubs until their LHO wins a club trick (establishing a club trick for declarer in the process), and then uses the lead restriction from the penalty card to force LHO to lead a heart, allowing declarer to regain control of the hand (using the established club trick, along with the remaining diamonds and tricks elsewhere, to make the contract). Without the penalty card, the defence could have run spades to defeat the contract.
The director at the table ruled that the prematurely played heart was a penalty card, but the appeals case overturned that, and ruled that the "run the diamonds" call made it clear that declarer planned to play all the diamonds, and thus that the heart discard was in rotation and should not be a penalty card as a result.
I think I'm more sympathetic to the table director, but both points of view are reasonable, and we could do with some clarity about what the rules should be in this case.
I think that as director I would rule that the heart was not led (the defender concerned believed he was following to the next diamond, and had some reason for this view given the earlier "run the diamonds" instruction). I then have a discretion under the introductory words of Law 50 to designate that the card is not a penalty card, and would exercise that discretion. Declarer can now run the diamonds or set up his club trick, and the defence can switch to spades when they get in.
I don't think it is necessary to rule specifically that the heart was in rotation to achieve this result.
@Abbeybear said:
I think that as director I would rule that the heart was not led (the defender concerned believed he was following to the next diamond, and had some reason for this view given the earlier "run the diamonds" instruction). I then have a discretion under the introductory words of Law 50 to designate that the card is not a penalty card, and would exercise that discretion. Declarer can now run the diamonds or set up his club trick, and the defence can switch to spades when they get in.
I don't think it is necessary to rule specifically that the heart was in rotation to achieve this result.
Yomight also be able to do so with a liberal interpretation of law 47E
E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation
1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) is retracted without further rectification if the player
was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play (see Law 16C).
A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances and Law 63A1 does
not apply.
Comments
I agree that a subsequent card in the suit should be deemed to be played only when it has been placed in the played position and the next defender has played.
(I just don't think that is what the minute says. The laws and the WBFLC seem at times to be in two minds as to when a card from dummy is played: either when it is named; or when it is named and put in the played position.)
Quite so, but declarer's instruction to run the clubs affords the defence the information that declarer's current intention is to run the suit (or even that he thinks it will run even if it won't). That doesn't do them any harm.
Even though the instruction is interpreted to mean "run the clubs unless and until I tell you not to at a later trick", I think it is sensible to cater to the fact that some players are inclined to give instructions of that sort (by specifying when the subsequent cards are deemed played), as opposed to adopting a Wolffian "penalise it out existence" attitude. Generally such an instruction does no real harm and doesn't deserve a harsh response.
No, any more than if a defender ruffs with an unexpected trump. Perhaps the real interpretation is "run the clubs unless and until I tell you not to at a later trick and/or you are not on lead".
That effectively means that the dummy is gaining discretion (in how long to wait for declarer to tell them not to). Something like "run the clubs, but wait 3 seconds before each card is played so that I can cancel this request" might be plausible, but the interpretation you're offering is too ambiguous.
Perhaps this is a comparable situation to declarer saying "play anything", which allows either opponent to designate a card (in this situation, the equivalent would be "forcing" dummy to decide "that's enough waiting, I'm going to play this")? (Note that this is different from the "dummy plays out of turn" interpretation, where only declarer's RHO could accept the lead.)
The other alternative is for dummy to always wait until declarer makes some positive motion to request that dummy plays the next card in the run of the suit, which seems to solve all the problems.
Yep - unless declarer is just waiting for dummy to play the next card (being unaware that he hasn't called for a card to be played).
It's one of these things where players have been brought up with bad habits and can't get rid of them. I think we just have to live with this and resolve problems as best as we can when they arrive.
I was reading an appeals case from the ACBL which is pretty relevant to this thread.
Declarer in a notrumps contract says "run the diamonds", then calls for a diamond explicitly on the next round anyway. The round after that, declarer's RHO is out, but forgets to turn the card from the previous trick face-down. Declarer tells the RHO to turn the card over, but the RHO mishears this, assumes that dummy has played a diamond, and thus discards a heart (face up, with declarer's LHO seeing it).
Declarer then rejects the "lead out of turn", causing the discarded heart to become a penalty card, and instead of continuing to run the diamonds, plays clubs until their LHO wins a club trick (establishing a club trick for declarer in the process), and then uses the lead restriction from the penalty card to force LHO to lead a heart, allowing declarer to regain control of the hand (using the established club trick, along with the remaining diamonds and tricks elsewhere, to make the contract). Without the penalty card, the defence could have run spades to defeat the contract.
The director at the table ruled that the prematurely played heart was a penalty card, but the appeals case overturned that, and ruled that the "run the diamonds" call made it clear that declarer planned to play all the diamonds, and thus that the heart discard was in rotation and should not be a penalty card as a result.
I think I'm more sympathetic to the table director, but both points of view are reasonable, and we could do with some clarity about what the rules should be in this case.
I think that as director I would rule that the heart was not led (the defender concerned believed he was following to the next diamond, and had some reason for this view given the earlier "run the diamonds" instruction). I then have a discretion under the introductory words of Law 50 to designate that the card is not a penalty card, and would exercise that discretion. Declarer can now run the diamonds or set up his club trick, and the defence can switch to spades when they get in.
I don't think it is necessary to rule specifically that the heart was in rotation to achieve this result.
Yomight also be able to do so with a liberal interpretation of law 47E
E. Change of Play Based on Misinformation
1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) is retracted without further rectification if the player
was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play (see Law 16C).
A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances and Law 63A1 does
not apply.