In trick taking games, terminology for not following suit

Question

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 here, 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.

Answer 1

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

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.

Answer 2

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.]

Answer 3

I think the question has the answer (although I'm a bridge player, and would likely use "show out" from Oscar Lanzi 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), 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"!

Answer 4

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.