[BLML] Incompletely designated ruff

Volker Walther bridge at vwalther.de
Fri Oct 21 18:01:17 CEST 2016

If "ruff" is equivalent to "win" the word "underruff" does not make any
sense. But there is sense in the word "underruff". So the assumption
that "ruff" and "win" are equivalent seems to be wrong.

But I agree "ruff" is not equivalent "trump" as well. It is somewhere in
between and much closer to "win" than to "spade".
Unless there is some evidence that declarer did not realize the S5,  I
would apply 46B1(b) rather than B2. But this decision has to be made at
the table.

Suppose the heart is led at trick 12 and declarer claims: "I will ruff
the hearts in dummy". Do you give a trump to the S5?


Am 19.10.2016 um 14:58 schrieb David Grabiner:
> 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
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Volker Walther

More information about the Blml mailing list