[axman]

It is trick 5 where dummy holds CAKQJT. The lead is in dummy. Declarer states, 'run the clubs'.

the relevant passage of law is 68A. Claim Defined

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.....

Declarer has made a statement that he is taking five club tricks. Has he claimed? I direct special emphasis to where the law has specified ANY statement.

[Vampyr]

I had never really noticed that L68 does not mention that "specific number of tricks" applies to the total on the hand. However, "run the clubs" seems like an instruction to dummy, not a statement to the opponents.

[aguahombre]

Declarer is giving instructions to dummy. Since a claim involves the ceasing of play, this instruction for dummy to continue playing a suit cannot be a claim. Also, declarer is not stating he will win a specific number of tricks. He is saying what the next five tricks will be.

I have heard this instruction several times, but have never done it. I am pretty sure that, even though this instruction has been given, declarer can also tell dummy to stop running the suit at some point afterward. But, that is why I don't give this instruction. A competent defender might be misled into thinking I will, in fact, finish running that suit and discard differently than he would if I might stop. This might result in damage, and I don't want to create an unpleasant situation --whether I have the right to stop or not.

And, no I cannot give a great example where the damage might occur.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Nov 8 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

And, no I cannot give a great example where the damage might occur.

How about if a defender knows he will be squeezed if you play them all, and so decides to bare a king early on?

[blackshoe]

axman, on Nov 8 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Declarer has made a statement that he is taking five club tricks.

No, he has not. He has, as others have pointed out, issued an instruction to dummy. The instruction conforms neither to the correct procedure defined in Law 46A, nor to any of the several incorrect procedures mentioned in the rest of that law, save perhaps that in 46B2 (he designated a suit, but not a rank, so he is deemed to play the lowest card of that suit in dummy). After dummy puts the ♣10 in the played position, he's done until he receives further instruction from declarer.

When that interpretation becomes interesting is when dummy is missing say the Jack, which would fall if clubs were played top down, but would take the first club trick if dummy played the ten. There will no doubt be a hue and cry claiming that I am being silly or whatever, since "everybody knows" what "run the clubs" means, but the only thing I know is what the laws say, and they don't cover this instruction explicitly. It either falls under 46B2, or it's invalid. A smart (or according to some, smart-ass) dummy would fail to understand it and ask declarer for clarification.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

axman, on Nov 8 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Declarer has made a statement that he is taking five club tricks.

No, he has not. He has, as others have pointed out, issued an instruction to dummy. The instruction conforms neither to the correct procedure defined in Law 46A, nor to any of the several incorrect procedures mentioned in the rest of that law, save perhaps that in 46B2 (he designated a suit, but not a rank, so he is deemed to play the lowest card of that suit in dummy). After dummy puts the ♣10 in the played position, he's done until he receives further instruction from declarer.

When that interpretation becomes interesting is when dummy is missing say the Jack, which would fall if clubs were played top down, but would take the first club trick if dummy played the ten. There will no doubt be a hue and cry claiming that I am being silly or whatever, since "everybody knows" what "run the clubs" means, but the only thing I know is what the laws say, and they don't cover this instruction explicitly. It either falls under 46B2, or it's invalid. A smart (or according to some, smart-ass) dummy would fail to understand it and ask declarer for clarification.

As far as I know a Norwegian championship was lost (many decades ago) because declarer did not specify that dummy should play his suit from the top.

Sven

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Nov 8 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

There will no doubt be a hue and cry claiming that I am being silly or whatever, since "everybody knows" what "run the clubs" means

It's true though. And in any case, I have never heard of a director being called after dummy received this instruction and played the cards from the top. So even though the procedure is not correct, I expect that it will continue.

[RMB1]

This is covered by a WBF LC minute and the EBU White Book. (Why is it always clubs? )

WBFLC minutes, on 2000-01-12#6, said:

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. Note that the Committee does not approve of the procedure of declarer naming several cards simultaneously in this fashion.

EBU White Book, on 2004 – Second edition November 2006, said:

46.1 “Run the clubs”
Declarers do say this when running a long suit in dummy. It is no more than a statement of intent, however, and declarer cannot be held to it. For example, if declarer finds to his surprise that they are not all winners he is allowed to change to an alternative line.
If it is felt that an opponent was misled then an adjustment via Law 73F2 might be in order.

Robin

[greenender]

RMB1, on Nov 8 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

This is covered by a WBF LC minute and the EBU White Book. (Why is it always clubs? )

WBFLC minutes, on 2000-01-12#6, said:

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. Note that the Committee does not approve of the procedure of declarer naming several cards simultaneously in this fashion.

EBU White Book, on 2004 – Second edition November 2006, said:

46.1 “Run the clubs”
Declarers do say this when running a long suit in dummy. It is no more than a statement of intent, however, and declarer cannot be held to it. For example, if declarer finds to his surprise that they are not all winners he is allowed to change to an alternative line.
If it is felt that an opponent was misled then an adjustment via Law 73F2 might be in order.

Robin

Doesn't the EBU also say somewhere that "run" is asumed to mean "run from the top"?

This seems to be implied from the comment about finding that they are not all winners.

[bluejak]

I think the EBU considered it too obvious to say. It is certainly assumed. Like saying "cross the road" involves walking across it, not skipping from roof of car to roof of car, even though that might technically be considered crossing the road.

[mycroft]

I'm simple (and occasionally stupid). I don't "run the clubs", and as dummy, I don't understand "run the clubs". I wait after every trick for partner to tell me what to do (I'll explain afterward that "run the clubs" is technically illegal, and can cause trouble if you try to stop (on an unexpected 5-0 break, for instance, with AKQJ9xx).

Strangely enough, my partners don't tend to "run the clubs".

[barmar]

While you and your partner might not "run the clubs", surely you understand what it means when an opponent does it.

One could make the claim that "run the clubs" is an example of 46B2 (declarer designates a suit bit not a rank). While this normally is deemed to be the lowest card of the suit, the verb "run" implies playing from the top, and the law says that the normal assumptions don't apply "when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible."

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Nov 10 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

the verb "run" implies playing from the top, and the law says that the normal assumptions don't apply "when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible."

You know, the dictionary app on this mac has a very extensive entry for the verb "run", and nowhere in it is there an indication that in cards it implies "from the top". There is an entry under the noun "run" that a "run" of cards is a sequence of them, but a sequence can go in either direction.

It may well be that common usage is that "run (a suit)" means "from the top", but that in no way makes declarer's intention (presumably "from the top") incontrovertible. After all, I just controverted it.

[barmar]

I wouldn't expect to find most bridge jargon in an ordinary dictionary (my Mac doesn't have the bridge definition of "slam", but surprisingly it does have "yarborough"). I'd be more interested in seeing whether the Bridge Encyclopedia defines it.

Here's what the Glossary page at www.bridgeworld.com says

Quote

(1) play off winners in a suit;
(2) (slang) escape to a new strain (particularly after being doubled in a different one).

Their definition (1) suffers from a common problem we encounter in dealing with claims (e.g. when he says "dummy is good"): what if all the cards are not winners as declarer presumably thought?

[bluejak]

I estimate that an opponent says "Run the clubs" against me about once a week or two. So after the first 500 times someone said it, and everyone meant from the top, I found it acceptable.

Like it or lump it, when someone uses a term not part of the bridge Law book, like "deuce", "trey", "cash", "follow" and so on. rulings are bsed on normal usage, not on something else.

[blackshoe]

Interesting. My Mac's dictionary has both definitions (slam and Yarborough). I'm pretty sure it came with OS X 10.5 (10.5.8 is my current version).

The Encyclopedia of Bridge says "to cash all of the winning cards of an established or solid suit by playing them one after another". Note that order is not specified.

Accepted usage, as I understand it, is that "run" means "from the top". That's fine. All I said is that "from the top" is not implied by the meaning of "run". It's implied, I suppose, by what a majority of bridge players erroneously think it means.

Hell of a way to run a railroad, ain't it?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Nov 11 2009, 01:41 AM, said:

Accepted usage, as I understand it, is that "run" means "from the top". That's fine. All I said is that "from the top" is not implied by the meaning of "run". It's implied, I suppose, by what a majority of bridge players erroneously think it means.

If a given usage of a word is accepted by a significant proportion of people, that is one of the word's meanings. Thankfully there is no Academie Anglaise to tell us what a word means, so it means whatever we collectively decide that it does.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-November-11, 04:14

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Nov 11 2009, 01:41 AM, said:

Accepted usage, as I understand it, is that "run" means "from the top". That's fine. All I said is that "from the top" is not implied by the meaning of "run". It's implied, I suppose, by what a majority of bridge players erroneously think it means.

I do not agree with you. It is not erroneous. If you play the 532 of a suit, you play them in any order. But "run" is different, and I feel it definitely means in order. I believe running a suit means playing it in order from the top. I consider that English.

What we need is an acknowledged expert on English. Obviously he needs to be Danish or German [Peter Eidt? Jens Brix Christiansen?].

[blackshoe]

Someone brought up The Encyclopedia of Bridge, implying at least, if not stating outright, that it is sufficiently an authority on the question. I quoted what the Encyclopedia says on the subject, and as I pointed out when I did so, it does not say that "run" means "from the top down". Now, maybe you're a better authority than the Encyclopedia, maybe not. But at the very least we have a difference in authoritative opinion here.

Maybe we should take Humpty Dumpty's approach: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. It's just a matter of who is to be master, that's all." -- Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass

[bluejak]

Let us forget ACBL publications, Ed.

If your partner said to you "Run the clubs" I do not ask what you would do: but what would you understand he meant?