[BLML] Incompletely designated ruff
Rui Lopes Marques
rmlmarques at zonmail.pt
Thu Oct 20 00:45:18 CEST 2016
I´m with Gordon on this one, the player most likely didn´t see the opponent´s card. “Ruff” has no definition inside the Laws. On a dictionary, ruff is “The playing of a trump card when one cannot follow suit.” Just that. And if declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. 46B2.
From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of gordonr60 at gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:01 PM
To: David Grabiner <grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu>; Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at rtflb.org>
Subject: Re: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff
I don’t think “ruff” is equivalent to “win” as it’s quite common to ruff and then be over-ruffed. It is equivalent to “play the lowest trump” unless it’s modified by “...with the Jack”. It does seem to me to be exactly like leading towards AQ in dummy and not noticing (or taking time to notice) the play of the king on the left.
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: David Grabiner <mailto:grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu>
Sent: 19 October 2016 14:27
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <mailto:blml at rtflb.org>
Subject: [BLML] Incompletely designated ruff
Spades are trumps. Dummy has J4 of spades. Declarer leads a heart from
hand, which LHO ruffs with the S5. Declarer says, "ruff". Does he play
the SJ or the S4?
The argument for overruffing is that "ruff" is equivalent to "win" (as
if he had led the S2 from hand). The argument for underruffing is that
he didn't notice the play; if he had led towards an AQ in dummy and
said, "queen", the queen would be played even if LHO had played the king.
Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org <mailto:Blml at rtflb.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml