Re: Incompletely designated ruff

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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:01 PM
To: David Grabiner <[email protected]>; Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
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:[email protected]> 
Sent: 19 October 2016 14:27
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <mailto:[email protected]> 
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

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 

http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml