"Run the hearts"
#1
Posted 2021-May-29, 11:01
Declarer tells dummy to "Run the Hearts", is declarer then allowed to instruct dummy to stop running the hearts and make another play?
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#2
Posted 2021-May-29, 11:27
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.
#3
Posted 2021-May-29, 14:01
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.
#4
Posted 2021-May-29, 14:34
jillybean, on 2021-May-29, 11:01, said:
Declarer tells dummy to "Run the Hearts", is declarer then allowed to instruct dummy to stop running the hearts and make another play?
Law 46B said:
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.
Law 68A said:
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
#5
Posted 2021-May-29, 15:13
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.
#6
Posted 2021-May-29, 15:53
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.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#7
Posted 2021-May-29, 16:24
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.
#8
Posted 2021-May-29, 17:42
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.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#9
Posted 2021-May-29, 18:08
blackshoe, on 2021-May-29, 17:42, said:
I am not sure the below precisely addresses your requirement.
The EBU White Book has this clarification -- link (https://www.ebu.co.u...-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.
#10
Posted 2021-May-29, 20:25
shyams, on 2021-May-29, 18:08, said:
The EBU White Book has this clarification -- link (https://www.ebu.co.u...-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.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2021-May-29, 20:30
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#12
Posted 2021-May-30, 05:30
blackshoe, on 2021-May-29, 20:30, said:
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.
#13
Posted 2021-May-30, 05:45
#14
Posted 2021-May-30, 06:50
jillybean, on 2021-May-29, 15:53, said:
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.
#15
Posted 2021-May-30, 07:11
axman, on 2021-May-30, 06:50, said:
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?
#16
Posted 2021-May-30, 08:17
axman, on 2021-May-30, 06:50, said:
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.
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#17
Posted 2021-May-30, 10:06
I do indeed wonder how many 'secretary birds' do realize the full consequence from the following clause within.
INTRODUCTION TO THE 2017 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE said:
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?
#18
Posted 2021-May-30, 12:25
pran, on 2021-May-30, 10:06, said:
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.
#19
Posted 2021-May-30, 12:50
pescetom, on 2021-May-30, 05:30, said:
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.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#20
Posted 2021-May-30, 15:04
blackshoe, on 2021-May-30, 12:50, said:
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.