[BLML] interesting problem

ton t.kooyman at worldonline.nl
Thu Nov 21 12:58:24 CET 2013

You seem to agree all of you, which is nice in itself. 

I am not that sure yet. Isn't it true that if we consider the ruff statement
as equal to having played a card from dummy two things can happen, either
RHO plays a card or tells that he doesn't accept the played card form dummy
OOT or LHO plays a card demanding his turn to play, after which declarer may
withdraw the card played in dummy (53C). The other possibility is that LHO
played out of turn where his partner has to play. Then we arrive in 57A.
This seems a situation where the TD should be called. Try to explain me
where I go wrong. 
I store it as a live exercise whatever the outcome is. 


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] Namens Sven Pran
Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 11:48
Aan: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] interesting problem

Peter Eidt 
> Von: Herman De Wael <hermandw at skynet.be>
> > Peter,
> > I never doubted you would get this correct.
> > You spared a lot of people some wrong guesses though.
> > One interesting twist: what if dummy has no trumps?
> Peter:
> ok, i'll leave this to those people mentioned above ;-)
> > Herman.

[Sven Pran] 
In that case we have Law 46B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in
dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card."

So no card has been played from dummy, and LHO may NOT change his play.

(May I add that I really appreciated Peter's very sound logic when answering
the original question, I was myself initially in a bit of doubt)

Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2014.0.4158 / Virusdatabase: 3629/6852 - datum van uitgifte:

More information about the Blml mailing list