[BLML] Incompletely designated ruff
Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de
Sat Oct 22 14:06:31 CEST 2016
This may be a language problem. The word "underruff"does make sense
linguistically although rarely at the bridge table. Gnerall "ruff"
surely means to ruff high enough to win the trick although there may be
rare exceptions. (I think you can find at least one by Victor Mollo and
Rueful Rabbit.) But I don't understand how ruff can not be equivalnt to
> Volker Walther wrote:
>> 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.
Can "ruff" not mean trump? Can you ruff with another suit?
>> 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?
> No, of course not.
> But the situations are not the same.
> When claiming, idiot actions (such as underruffing or not noticing the
> S5) are rendered impossible.
> Whereas when playing, such actions do occur.
> As I understand the case, it is clear that declarer did not notice the
> S5. If the hands are turned around, it's like him not noticing that card
> from his RHO, and simply playing a low trump on it. That card is played,
> and so is the card from dummy once he names it. If he says "ruff with
> the 4", that's hat he does. IMO, that's exactly what he intended to do,
> and that's what I'm sticking him with.
>> 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
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
More information about the Blml