Re: Incompletely designated ruff

"Common sense" tells me that "ruff" shows the incontrovertible intention to
win the trick.
Law 46B: .....(except when declarer’s different intention is
incontrovertible).

If his intention had been to underruff I would have expected him to simply
call for "a trump" or "a spade".

However, if he says "ruff" before LHO has played to the trick he is deemed
to play the lowest trump regardless of which card LHO then plays.

The word "ruff" doesn't designate a card, it designates an action.

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av
> David Grabiner
> Sendt: 19. oktober 2016 14:59
> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: [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
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml