<p>The term I have seen in bridge columns is <strong>&quot;show out&quot;.</strong> The column might go something like this:</p>
<p>&quot;South then cashed the ace and king of trumps [expecting the opponents' five trumps to break 3-2], but West showed out. South then had to lose a trump to East's jack.&quot; [Followed by a description of how South should have played to guard against a possible 4-1 break.]</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-24T02:40:55.747Z
To my ear, this terminology wouldn't be used in a situation where the person who "showed out" had the choice to trump or not.
Greg Martin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-25T02:47:36.823Z
I disagree with @GregMartin on this, and feel this is the best answer.  I can well imagine a sentence such as _"South showed out of hearts, but didn't ruff, leaving declarer wondering if the outstanding trumps were all with North"._
Dawood ibn Kareem
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T20:09:04.340Z
2022-08-23T20:09:04.340Z
Oscar Lanzi
<p>I think the question has the answer (although I'm a bridge player, and would likely use &quot;show out&quot; from Oscar Lanzi myself).</p>
<p>The phrase <strong>&quot;didn't follow&quot;</strong> - in fact, the whole &quot;Context:&quot; line - is perfectly correct and would be understandable to players.</p>
<p>Another similar line, used in the <a href="http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2017LawsofDuplicateBridge-gender_neutral_1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Laws of Duplicate Bridge (gender neutral)</a>, in Law 70E1 about claims:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>E. Unstated Line of Play</p>
<ol>
<li>The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent <strong>failed to follow</strong> to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently <strong>fail to follow</strong> to that suit on any normal line of play.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>Note that because the accepted answer is also correct, there is a strong implication at least in trump games (Bridge, Whist, Euchre,...) without other context (such as the Law) that &quot;didn't follow&quot;, &quot;showed out&quot;, &quot;failed to follow&quot;, etc., means &quot;and didn't trump&quot; - because if they had, that would be at least as important to the story as &quot;showed out&quot;.  The fact that the ABA doesn't have a differentiator in its bridge vocabulary is strong evidence of the unlikelihood of &quot;whether they trumped or sluffed isn't relevant to this statement&quot;!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-01T20:05:05.210Z
Nice, important addition to the accepted answer
Cohensius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-01T16:24:35.370Z
2024-07-01T16:24:35.370Z
Mycroft
<p>Anecdotally, people I have gamed with have always used the term &quot;break&quot;, as in &quot;Bob played a Diamond, and Jim was forced to break, discarding a Spade&quot;.  I do not know how common or prevalent this term is, though.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-24T15:48:57.677Z
This terminology only applies to games such as **Hearts**, where the general goal is to avoid taking tricks in order to avoid capturing penalty cards. Though non-standard, many play *house rules* where certain suits, such as Spades and Hearts in **Hearts**, cannot be led until they have been discarded. In trick-taking games the term of having "broken" a suit instead refers to having initially (at disadvantage) ***led*** it, not discarded it.
Forget I was ever here
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-25T20:40:11.887Z
Break is common term in **Spades** as well. It means a player can not lead spades until spades were broken.  So break is not the term that I am looking for.
Cohensius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-24T15:01:35.933Z
2022-08-24T15:01:35.933Z
GWLlosa
<p>As the strategy of all players is immediately effected by second hand not following suit, all terms for this distinguish - of necessity - between discarding a side suit and playing a trump. The latter is always an attempt to win the trick while the former abandons ability to win the trick. In over 6 decades of playing a wide variety of trick-taking card games, the notion of being able to proceed in any manner without knowing second hand's choice has never arisen.</p>
<p>Including terms identified in comments above:</p>
<h2>Synonyms for not following suit with a trump:</h2>
<ul>
<li><em>trump</em></li>
<li><em>ruff</em></li>
<li><em>overruff</em> or <em>overtrump</em> - when an earlier hand to the trick has already ruffed</li>
<li><em>be tapped</em> - forced to ruff in a context where control of the hand is at stake and one would have preferred not to trump</li>
<li><em>uppercut</em> - trumping to force opponents to over-trump high (due to some other threat in hand), thus establishing a trump trick in partner's hand through either length or power</li>
</ul>
<h2>Synonyms for not following suit with a non-trump:</h2>
<ul>
<li><em>discard</em> (the technical term preferred in writing Rules and Laws)</li>
<li><em>slough</em> or <em>sluff</em></li>
<li><em>pitch</em></li>
<li><em>dump</em></li>
<li><em>jettison</em></li>
<li><em>unblock</em> - discard of specifically a blocking high card in a side suit, to improve communication between hands</li>
<li><em>shed</em></li>
<li><em>throw off</em></li>
<li><em>cast off</em></li>
<li><em>ditch</em></li>
<li><em>drop</em></li>
<li><em>dispensed with</em> - would apply when discarding a card being held for a purpose that no longer applies, such as in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeeze_play_(bridge)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">squeeze defense</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Combined:</h2>
<ul>
<li><em>sluff and ruff</em> - the circumstance where a loser is eliminated (and extra winner created) because both hands of a partnership are out of the suit led; thus one can  <em>sluff</em> the loser while the other <em>ruffs</em> with an otherwise non-winning trump card</li>
</ul>
<p>In enlivening a narrative, one could consider almost any synonym for &quot;<em>to throw away</em>&quot; as a possible alternative phrasing for the act of discarding another side suit</p>
<p>Note:</p>
<p>Another answer proposes the term <em>break</em>. This terminology only applies to games such as Hearts, where the general goal is to avoid taking tricks in order to avoid capturing penalty cards. Though non-standard, many play house rules where certain suits, such as Spades and Hearts in Hearts, cannot be led until they have been discarded. In trick-taking games the term of having &quot;broken&quot; a suit instead refers to having initially (at disadvantage) led it, not discarded it.</p>
<p>The reason for the term is that there is an inherent disadvantage to being the first side to lead a suit, whether from a guaranteed <em>end-play</em> situation or the necessity of giving up on possible safety plays against a bad break in one direction.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-24T00:42:09.223Z
I feel this doesn't answer the question.  OP is looking for a word or a phrase that means failing to follow suit, EITHER with a trump, or not.  The only phrases I know of that fit the bill are "fail to follow suit" and "show out" (as identified by Oscar).  Your first sentence asserts that no such term exists, which is clearly untrue.
Dawood ibn Kareem
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-24T00:59:37.110Z
@DawoodibnKareem: Take it up with OP - who as as of this moment, opted to **accept** this as the answer.
Forget I was ever here
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-24T05:14:42.003Z
Indeed I am looking for this word, but @ForgetIwaseverhere says that for his best knowledge there is no short term for "not following suit".  That also an answer.  Regarding "Show out", as commented, it does not describe the situation where one has the option between trumping or discarding.
Cohensius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-26T11:55:47.210Z
I want to make a small correction regarding your end note: in hearts, only the heart suit need to be broken to be lead.  Spades can be lead before any spade has bean played.  In the game Spades, spades need to be broken in order to lead them.
Cohensius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-26T12:41:49.737Z
@Cohensius: *House Rules* and variants abound in these games. I've seen play groups for Hearts requiring the Spade suit to be broken before being led; an hence my choice of wording. I've even seen groups requiring Diamonds to be broken before being led.
Forget I was ever here
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-26T14:21:09.120Z
Thanks, didn't knew those house rules exists.  "If it wasn't on the windows version, then it does not exists"
Cohensius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-26T17:30:41.027Z
Of course there are certain exceptions, such as when you play a trump but you're not trying (or expecting) to win the trick, or when you are forced to lead a heart in the game Hearts, which you would not otherwise be able to lead (because they haven't been broken), because you have only hearts remaining.  There are also games where a card can "pass the lead", such as a Jester in the game Wizard.  I just played a game of Wizard where I won my bid-fulfilling trick on the last trick of the hand because the other 3 players each played a Jester, effectively all passing the lead to me.
jrw32982
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-09-15T06:02:34.360Z
I want to add the context for when it is relevant, a player did not followed suit Thus we know she is Void in that suit.  For that matter we do not care if she trumped and won the trick or discarded a different side suit.
Cohensius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T13:22:33.747Z
2022-11-14T06:29:32.077Z
2022-11-14T06:29:32.077Z
Forget I was ever here
<p>In most Trick-taking-games like Bridge, Spades and Whist, after the first seat plays a card, all other players must follow suit if they can.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If second seat plays a card of the same suit, one can say: she
followed suit.</p>
</li>
<li><p>If second seat played a card of a different suit, one can say: she did not followed suit.  However most of the times the name of the her action would depend on the suit she played:</p>
<p>a. If she played a trump it is called <em>cut/ruff/trumped</em>,</p>
<p>b. If she played a side-suit it is called a <em>discard</em>.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>I am looking for a term that does not determine if she played a trump or a different side-suit (combine both options 2a+2b)</p>
<ul>
<li>I could not find it at <a href="https://ababridge.org/bridge-terminology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://ababridge.org/bridge-terminology</a></li>
<li><em>Revoke/Renege</em> does not fit here, it means: fail to follow suit when must (breaking the rules).</li>
<li>Context: a player did not follow suit, therefore we know she is void in that suit. For that matter we do not care if she trumped or discarded a different side suit.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T08:43:05.553Z
Maybe yield? Or discard?
npst
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T10:20:59.890Z
There's [slough](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slough) (Entry 4 of 4) but that excludes the possibility of trumping.
Glorfindel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-23T11:27:30.253Z
(Otherwise, I'd simply go for "she did not follow suit" - sometimes clarity trumps brevity (pun intended))
Glorfindel
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-25T13:04:29.993Z
It's 'seat', not 'sit'.
TonyK
<terminology><trick-taking-games>
In trick taking games, terminology for not following suit
Cohensius
# In trick taking games, terminology for not following suit

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-23)

In most Trick-taking-games like Bridge, Spades and Whist, after the first seat plays a card, all other players must follow suit if they can.

1. If second seat plays a card of the same suit, one can say: she
   followed suit.
2. If second seat played a card of a different suit, one can say: she did not followed suit. However most of the times the name of the her action would depend on the suit she played:

   a. If she played a trump it is called *cut/ruff/trumped*,

   b. If she played a side-suit it is called a *discard*.

I am looking for a term that does not determine if she played a trump or a different side-suit (combine both options 2a+2b)

* I could not find it at <https://ababridge.org/bridge-terminology>
* *Revoke/Renege* does not fit username_9, it means: fail to follow suit when must (breaking the rules).
* Context: a player did not follow suit, therefore we know she is void in that suit. For that matter we do not care if she trumped or discarded a different side suit.

**Tags:** terminology, trick-taking-games

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Maybe yield? Or discard?  
> **username_2**: There's [slough](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slough) (Entry 4 of 4) but that excludes the possibility of trumping.  
> **username_2**: (Otherwise, I'd simply go for "she did not follow suit" - sometimes clarity trumps brevity (pun intended))  
> **username_3**: It's 'seat', not 'sit'.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_9 on 2022-08-23. Score: 18 | Accepted answer

As the strategy of all players is immediately effected by second hand not following suit, all terms for this distinguish - of necessity - between discarding a side suit and playing a trump. The latter is always an attempt to win the trick while the former abandons ability to win the trick. In over 6 decades of playing a wide variety of trick-taking card games, the notion of being able to proceed in any manner without knowing second hand's choice has never arisen.

Including terms identified in comments above:

## Synonyms for not following suit with a trump:

* *trump*
* *ruff*
* *overruff* or *overtrump* - when an earlier hand to the trick has already ruffed
* *be tapped* - forced to ruff in a context where control of the hand is at stake and one would have preferred not to trump
* *uppercut* - trumping to force opponents to over-trump high (due to some other threat in hand), thus establishing a trump trick in partner's hand through either length or power

## Synonyms for not following suit with a non-trump:

* *discard* (the technical term preferred in writing Rules and Laws)
* *slough* or *sluff*
* *pitch*
* *dump*
* *jettison*
* *unblock* - discard of specifically a blocking high card in a side suit, to improve communication between hands
* *shed*
* *throw off*
* *cast off*
* *ditch*
* *drop*
* *dispensed with* - would apply when discarding a card being held for a purpose that no longer applies, such as in [squeeze defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeeze_play_(bridge))

## Combined:

* *sluff and ruff* - the circumstance where a loser is eliminated (and extra winner created) because both hands of a partnership are out of the suit led; thus one can *sluff* the loser while the other *ruffs* with an otherwise non-winning trump card

In enlivening a narrative, one could consider almost any synonym for "*to throw away*" as a possible alternative phrasing for the act of discarding another side suit

Note:

Another answer proposes the term *break*. This terminology only applies to games such as Hearts, where the general goal is to avoid taking tricks in order to avoid capturing penalty cards. Though non-standard, many play house rules where certain suits, such as Spades and Hearts in Hearts, cannot be led until they have been discarded. In trick-taking games the term of having "broken" a suit instead refers to having initially (at disadvantage) led it, not discarded it.

The reason for the term is that there is an inherent disadvantage to being the first side to lead a suit, whether from a guaranteed *end-play* situation or the necessity of giving up on possible safety plays against a bad break in one direction.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: I feel this doesn't answer the question.  OP is looking for a word or a phrase that means failing to follow suit, EITHER with a trump, or not.  The only phrases I know of that fit the bill are "fail to follow suit" and "show out" (as identified by username_4).  Your first sentence asserts that no such term exists, which is clearly untrue.  
> **username_9**: @username_6: Take it up with OP - who as as of this moment, opted to **accept** this as the answer.  
> **username_0**: Indeed I am looking for this word, but @username_9 says that for his best knowledge there is no short term for "not following suit".  That also an answer.  Regarding "Show out", as commented, it does not describe the situation where one has the option between trumping or discarding.  
> **username_0**: I want to make a small correction regarding your end note: in hearts, only the heart suit need to be broken to be lead.  Spades can be lead before any spade has bean played.  In the game Spades, spades need to be broken in order to lead them.  
> **username_9**: @username_0: *House Rules* and variants abound in these games. I've seen play groups for Hearts requiring the Spade suit to be broken before being led; an hence my choice of wording. I've even seen groups requiring Diamonds to be broken before being led.  
> **username_0**: Thanks, didn't knew those house rules exists.  "If it wasn't on the windows version, then it does not exists"  
> **username_10**: Of course there are certain exceptions, such as when you play a trump but you're not trying (or expecting) to win the trick, or when you are forced to lead a heart in the game Hearts, which you would not otherwise be able to lead (because they haven't been broken), because you have only hearts remaining.  There are also games where a card can "pass the lead", such as a Jester in the game Wizard.  I just played a game of Wizard where I won my bid-fulfilling trick on the last trick of the hand because the other 3 players each played a Jester, effectively all passing the lead to me.  
> **username_0**: I want to add the context for when it is relevant, a player did not followed suit Thus we know she is Void in that suit.  For that matter we do not care if she trumped and won the trick or discarded a different side suit.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-08-23. Score: 10

The term I have seen in bridge columns is **"show out".** The column might go something like this:

"South then cashed the ace and king of trumps [expecting the opponents' five trumps to break 3-2], but West showed out. South then had to lose a trump to East's jack." [Followed by a description of how South should have played to guard against a possible 4-1 break.]

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: To my ear, this terminology wouldn't be used in a situation where the person who "showed out" had the choice to trump or not.  
> **username_6**: I disagree with @username_5 on this, and feel this is the best answer.  I can well imagine a sentence such as _"South showed out of hearts, but didn't ruff, leaving declarer wondering if the outstanding trumps were all with North"._  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2024-07-01. Score: 4

I think the question has the answer (although I'm a bridge player, and would likely use "show out" from username_4 myself).

The phrase **"didn't follow"** - in fact, the whole "Context:" line - is perfectly correct and would be understandable to players.

Another similar line, used in the [Laws of Duplicate Bridge (gender neutral)](http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2017LawsofDuplicateBridge-gender_neutral_1.pdf), in Law 70E1 about claims:

> E. Unstated Line of Play
>
> 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent **failed to follow** to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently **fail to follow** to that suit on any normal line of play.

Note that because the accepted answer is also correct, there is a strong implication at least in trump games (Bridge, Whist, Euchre,...) without other context (such as the Law) that "didn't follow", "showed out", "failed to follow", etc., means "and didn't trump" - because if they had, that would be at least as important to the story as "showed out". The fact that the ABA doesn't have a differentiator in its bridge vocabulary is strong evidence of the unlikelihood of "whether they trumped or sluffed isn't relevant to this statement"!

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Nice, important addition to the accepted answer  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2022-08-24. Score: 2

Anecdotally, people I have gamed with have always used the term "break", as in "Bob played a Diamond, and Jim was forced to break, discarding a Spade". I do not know how common or prevalent this term is, though.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: This terminology only applies to games such as **Hearts**, where the general goal is to avoid taking tricks in order to avoid capturing penalty cards. Though non-standard, many play *house rules* where certain suits, such as Spades and Hearts in **Hearts**, cannot be led until they have been discarded. In trick-taking games the term of having "broken" a suit instead refers to having initially (at disadvantage) ***led*** it, not discarded it.  
> **username_0**: Break is common term in **Spades** as well. It means a player can not lead spades until spades were broken.  So break is not the term that I am looking for.  

---

