"run the Clubs" should it be play from the small one ?

[eric]

"Run the Clubs" was called from the declarer, should the dummy play from the top or from the bottom ? 

In the Law, "play a Club" means play the lowest.  To avoid confusion, better say "run the Clubs from the top" instead of "run the Clubs".  However, when "run the Clubs" is called, can the defender asked the dummy to play the card from bottom ? 

[Bestdog]

Hi,
The 2007 laws are clear on this. It is top down relevant law is 70E(2) a.
Here's an extract from the Zone 7 interpretation of 2007 laws.

Law 70E2 In adjudicating disputed claims involving an unstated line of play the following
guidelines apply:
(a) Top down
A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them
from the top, this is especially so if there is some solidity.

cheers
Bruce

[Alan Jones]

The question implies that if a small club is played then someone else will win the trick!
This would make it impossible to "run the suit".
Therefore, logically, a request to "run the Clubs"  must be from the top down.

[eric]

In addition to 'logical', we have to play according to the law and also we have to have an agreed way to run within Australia at least.  I had two different experience, that's the reason I would like an A-grade director to tell.
I played in Woolongong 2 years ago, the 'run the Club' was judged as play from the low card.  This time in Gold Coast, the director hesitated and I asked HER to check with someone else, she came back and say from the 'regulations' this is from the top.  i asked HER to give me the information about the 'regulations' so that I can learn and make it as a consistent ruling within Australia.  She has not followed this up with me.  So, I put a message here and would like to know more.
I can understand the 'run the Club' is normally from top down, then the director two years ago may be wrong.  However, I hope there is a regulation or supplement information from ABF to define this.

[Paul Sherman]

Laurie Kelso (an A grade director) has posted an interesting article on just such an animal recently. Whilst the issue of that article is not specifically whether it should be run from the top or the bottom, it assumes that it is from the top. The article is well worth reading anyway and can be found here:  http://www.abf.com.au/directors/bulletins/rtd2000.pdf

You may need Adobe Acrobat reader to view the article.

My own view on this topic is that it's silly to run any suit from the bottom. That's not running a suit, that's asking for a low card for the purposes of ruffing it or unblocking a higher card from hand, unless the suit is already set up (there are no losers in it) in which case it is irrelevant which end it is run from.

[eric]

Paul, the articles is interesting, there is no law to say 'run the D' but this is already a very common practice in the game.  Back to my original question, 'run the D' means from top or bottom ?  There is no law to tell, there is not regulations to tell.  Sensibly, 'run the D' is from the top.  I hope there is somewhere to state this and all the Directors in Australia would follow, better than different Director different ruling. 
In the article, again. 'sun the D' is not a legal call from the declarer but it is a very common way to play, hence, after DK and all turned the card over and dummy pull the DQ is normal and just follow the instructions from the declarer.   In this situation, revoked is established.
Now comes in the law and common practice.  Or in the real life,  Common Practice or the morale standard in the society may apply in a court case.  Especially in a Club level, if there is Law or Regulations governed, I will apply the common practice in the Club / region / country. 

[Paul Sherman]

Eric, I understand your dilemma but simply, there is no law regarding from the top or the bottom. The laws are written by the Drafting Subcommittee of the Executive Committee of the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee and are adopted by the Australian Bridge Federation as well as other national bodies of other countries.

Far be it for me to secondguess the reasoning of the Drafting Subcommittee in their drafting of the Laws but I suspect that their reasoning in not specifying whether a suit should be run from the top down or bottom up is one of common sense. In a suit headed by the AKQ and ending with the 2, you couldn't "run" the suit for more than 1 trick from the bottom unless the suit was established already, in which case it made no difference. But common sense would dictate that a suit can only be run one way and for that reason this was not further specified in the Laws.

[Bestdog]

Hey Guys,
It seems you didn't notice my previous reply to this post. There is published guidance on applying the laws. Here's the URL
http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/InRegGuid09.pdf
Regarding law 70E(2), it states the order is Top Down.

Eric, your experience in Wollongong 2 years ago would have been before the 2007 laws came into effect. This clarification of order of play came in with 2007 laws, so that may explain the different rulings.

cheers
Bruce

[Paul Sherman]

Bruce, I did read your earlier reply but there is a problem. I have the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge and there is no 70E(2)a or anything else, just 70E2.

70E2 states: "The Regulating Authority" may specify an order (e.g. "from the top down") in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law)."  The bold bits are mine.

Bruce, what you wrote in your earlier post doesn't exist in the 2007 Laws. Did you get it out of the Zone 7 interpretations, perhaps? I'm not sure if the Interpretations are what we are using in Australia (Matthew might clarify this) but the Laws do not break 70E2 down any further into (a), (b) etc.

Paul

[MIP]

A variant of this theme came up the other night. I was not directing and it occurred at a nearby table. There was a long suit of clubs in Dummy headed by the QJ, which evidently were high. Declarer, a "social" level player, did not say "run the clubs" but she called for the queen, and then for "another club." The director was called and ruled that the lowest club must now be played. Declarer bitched about this but did not know enough to challenge successfully with this particular director.

I would have ruled differently, under the caveat in Law 46B "(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible)". This player was not familiar with the finer points of the Law, and there was no way she ever intended not to play the jack after the queen. This is one of the rare occasions when these bracketed words come into effect. I might have taken a different view in the case of a more experienced declarer.

Rgds...Mike

[Bestdog]

Hey Paul,
You are correct, the 2007 laws have law70E2, but no 70E2(a).
That extra designation is in the document "Law Interpretation, Regulation and guidance", which is promulgated jointly by ABF and NZbridge.
I understand this document to be the ABF's ruling as the "Regulating Authority" as noted in 70E2.

cheers
Bruce

[Matthew McManus]

In my opinion, there is a law to cover this, as described by Mike. Whenever there is a dispute as to what card is to be played from dummy after an incomplete or errorneous call by declarer (as in "run the clubs"), the Director should always be mindful of the proviso in Law 46B: "except where declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". Obviously when declarer says "run the clubs", he is intending to win all the tricks which will be afforded by dummy's clubs. To make him play a small one so as to lose the trick is clearly not what he intended and therefore to rule so would be in conflict with Law 46B.

[bluejak]

I am sorry, but references to Laws on claims are not relevant.

When someone says something casual, it is not reasonable to assume he means something other than general usage.  "Run the clubs" means run the clubs from the top: everyone knows that, so trying to catch a declarer out because he was casual and said run the clubs is neither sporting nor legal.  It does not need a regulation.

Compare the following: dummy holds AJ752 of a suit.  Declarer says "top".  An opponent says "aces are lower than twos, so the top card is the jack".  Do you rule the jack is played?  No, of course not, that is ridiculous.  It does not matter what an opponent [in my view a rather nasty opponent] thinks: custom & practice is relevant.

In fact the World Bridge Federation Laws Committee said that a declarer who said "Run the clubs" is not forced to continue to do so if it becomes ridiculous, for example if they break badly and are not all winners as assumed.  They assumed "Run the clubs" meant from the top and thought it too obvious to say so.  For WBFLC interpretations, I always use the EBU White book http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/2004whitebook.htm because it is easier to find the relevant ones since they are in Law number order: see #46.2.

If you really want a law reference then I would suggest

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible):

"Run the clubs" is an erroneous call, since it is not the correct way to do it.  But we know what his intention is, so any meaning you ascribe to this apart from "Play the clubs from the top" is incontrovertibly different from his intention.

[Paul Sherman]

Welcome to the Aussie corner of directors' hellpit, David, my almost forgotten friend and one-time team mate! Your sober and concise contributions will certainly liven up the forum no end. I hope the powers-that-be start you off with 6 stars, as a minimum. Incidentally, before I forget, I hope you've taken off that sign on your links page that says my site is slow??

Anyhow I'm glad you've found your way here and I hope you'll stay around. Your input is always valued and refreshing, not to mention entertaining and accurate.

Paul

[bluejak]

Slow?  Naaah, you are imagining things.