[jules101]

I was asked this question yesterday, and I didn't know the answer.

Can you point to Law which says yeah or neah!


Declarer is in a NT contract, and has established dummy's long Diamond suit.

Declarer asks dummy to "play diamonds from the top".

After a couple of tricks she decides to change her plan.


Is she allowed to ask dummy to stop playing the diamonds (as long as dummy hasn't picked up the next)?

Or is she obliged to play out all the diamonds as per earlier instruction?


My feeling is that she's allowed to change her plan, but I can't find where it says this in Law.

Can you refer me to the relevant section?

Thanks

[pran]

jules101, on 2012-March-16, 03:09, said:

I was asked this question yesterday, and I didn't know the answer.

Can you point to Law which says yeah or neah!


Declarer is in a NT contract, and has established dummy's long Diamond suit.

Declarer asks dummy to "play diamonds from the top".

After a couple of tricks she decides to change her plan.


Is she allowed to ask dummy to stop playing the diamonds (as long as dummy hasn't picked up the next)?

Or is she obliged to play out all the diamonds as per earlier instruction?


My feeling is that she's allowed to change her plan, but I can't find where it says this in Law.

Can you refer me to the relevant section?

Thanks

Technically Declarer is required to play (call) each card individually from Dummy, and if she has said word to the effect: "play diamonds from the top" she should still with a nod, "continue", "next" or something call the next card.

I see no reason why she may not change her plan half way through (unless her initial request for the Diamonds is deemed to be a claim).

[mjj29]

The EBU white book contains a quote from the WBFLC minutes:

WB46.2 WBFLC minutes 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.

So yes, declarer can stop running the diamonds.

Matt

[aguahombre]

Have other jurisdictions been wise enough to codify this passage from the WBFLC minutes, or is the EBU (via its white book) the only diligent entity?

[mycroft]

I think that a wiser entry would be to tell them they *can't* stop, because if declarer is inconsiderate enough to do this, the defenders should be allowed to work out all their plays; and if declarer is allowed to change her mind, it's not really fair.

But my passive-aggressive SB attitude as dummy tends to work better at training out this pecadillio (at least in my partners). The law says that this statement is either a claim, or means "play the top diamond, partner" - so since it's obviously not a claim, I play the top diamond. And then I wait for partner to call the next card.

Can you tell I really dislike this one?

[axman]

mycroft, on 2012-March-16, 11:53, said:

I think that a wiser entry would be to tell them they *can't* stop, because if declarer is inconsiderate enough to do this, the defenders should be allowed to work out all their plays; and if declarer is allowed to change her mind, it's not really fair.

But my passive-aggressive SB attitude as dummy tends to work better at training out this pecadillio (at least in my partners). The law says that this statement is either a claim, or means "play the top diamond, partner" - so since it's obviously not a claim, I play the top diamond. And then I wait for partner to call the next card.

Can you tell I really dislike this one?

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

[mycroft]

Well, except that the WBFLC doesn't think so (although it does suggest that this method of not-claiming is frowned upon) - see above.

[barmar]

axman, on 2012-March-16, 14:11, said:

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

But running a suit is not such a statement. It implies that they'll win the tricks in that suit, but doesn't say how many other tricks they'll win. A claim has to state a specific number, or perhaps a conditional number (e.g. "I'll take 9 tricks if the finesse is on, otherwise only 8").

[jules101]

My understanding was that this wasn't a claim.

I don't have the hand, but let's suppose that by running ALL the diamonds declarer was squeezing her own hand.

She therefore decided it would be prudent to change her plan part way though running the diamonds.

[I'm just guessing - I don't have the hand, nor do I know what declarer changed her plan.]


I was merely asked about the principle.


May declarer countermand her earlier instruction ("please play the diamonds from the top") part way through the task being completed?


It sounds from the early posts as if she is entitled to do this.

[barmar]

It seems like this could be a violation of 73D2. The manner of this call could mislead the opponents into thinking that you plan on playing all the diamonds.

But the WBFLC excerpt indicates that they don't think so -- opponents should not make this assumption.

[mjj29]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-16, 10:09, said:

Have other jurisdictions been wise enough to codify this passage from the WBFLC minutes, or is the EBU (via its white book) the only diligent entity?

Well, WBFLC minutes are interpretations of the laws which apply everywhere, so they don't have to

jules101 said:

May declarer countermand her earlier instruction ("please play the diamonds from the top") part way through the task being completed?

It sounds from the early posts as if she is entitled to do this.

Yes, such a statement is not binding. The WBFLC have clarified it in the minutes I quoted

[aguahombre]

mjj29, on 2012-March-18, 07:49, said:

Well, WBFLC minutes are interpretations of the laws which apply everywhere, so they don't have to

Yes, such a statement is not binding. The WBFLC have clarified it in the minutes I quoted

I didn't realize that TD's all are thoroughly familiar with every interpretation found in every WBFLC minute. Apparently UK people who maintain the white book felt it important to codify. I was wondering if other jurisdictions had done so...not whether they have to.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL has not done so. OTOH, I doubt the ACBL considers these WBF interpretations binding in ACBL-land. On the gripping hand, I would follow the WBF in those cases where the ACBL hasn't issued its own interpretations, which AFAIK is most of them, if not all.

As for ACBL TDs' views, I daresay some will ignore the WBF — it is, after all, not the ACBL — and some (probably most) will be completely unaware that there is a WBFLC, much less that they've issued interpretations.

[bluejak]

Top TDs in Europe have been known to sneer openly at the EBU White book - and keep a copy for themselves for reference! We are not aware of any jurisdiction except Denmark that has anything similar but there must be one or two others.

To clarify: if you say "Run the clubs" then it is not a claim. It is an undesirable way of proceeding. However, you can change your mind. If you do so for no apparent reason then the opponents might get an adjusted score if they were misled into thinking you were going to run all the clubs and it affected their defence. However, if you switch because you have realised they are not all good then it is reasonable to assume opponents will understand this and not be misled, and opponents who wish you to play another are probably just trying to be Secretary Birds.