[gnasher]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit about who I meant by "we". And when I said "I was talking about what a director should do", I should have used a more annoying font.

This is what I think should happen:

- Declarer says "ruff"
- Dummy does nothing
- An opponent calls the director and explains what happened.
- The director collects evidence as to the facts. As part of that process, he examines the bidding and play so far, and asks declarer what he thought the contract was when he said "ruff".
- In the unlikely event that declarer declines to answer, the director penalises him for a breach of Law 90B8.
- The director determines that declarer's intention was incontrovertibly to play dummy's lowest spade, and therefore rules that a spade was played.

It's true that there is no rule that says "Before the director makes a ruling, he gathers the evidence that he needs to make that ruling". Perhaps the Lawmakers thought it was obvious.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-July-20, 06:30, said:

It's true that there is no rule that says "Before the director makes a ruling, he gathers the evidence that he needs to make that ruling". Perhaps the Lawmakers thought it was obvious.

I think it's implicit in Law 84's "When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation, and the facts are agreed…" and Law 85's "In determining the facts, the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect" and "If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84".

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-July-20, 06:09, said:

So, if declarer says "what is the contract?", the opponents can keep quiet and then dummy has to answer? I note that 41C uses the passive "is entitled to be informed" without establishing who has the duty to inform him. If the opponents had that obligation, the Laws would say "is entitled to be informed by an opponent".
[...]

The obligation to give that information is a collective obligation on all the players at the table (including Dummy).

[barmar]

Maybe we should bring back trump indicators.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2015-July-20, 09:14, said:

Maybe we should bring back trump indicators.

You mean like the suit on Dummy's right? I believe Peg Kaplan provided a thread on dummy-putting. Perhaps it was on BridgeWinners, not here.

If nt is the contract, don't put your own long suit or a suit bid by Declarer in that position.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2015-July-20, 11:49, said:

You mean like the suit on Dummy's right? I believe Peg Kaplan provided a thread on dummy-putting. Perhaps it was on BridgeWinners, not here.

If nt is the contract, don't put your own long suit or a suit bid by Declarer in that position.

That's a suggestion, and a good one, but it's not a rule. However, I think he's talking about something else, something which I only vaguely remember, perhaps some kind of token.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2015-July-20, 13:25, said:

That's a suggestion, and a good one, but it's not a rule. However, I think he's talking about something else, something which I only vaguely remember, perhaps some kind of token.

It is not a rule in the rule books; it is our rule to prevent confusion when we declare. A token would have to been declared an exception to the rules since it would be an aid to memory or technique introduced onto the table.

[blackshoe]

Barry can say what he meant. What I was thinking of probably predates any "aids to memory" rule.

[jeffford76]

The ACBL Laws Commission addressed this issue in November 2013 (I think because of an email I sent to rulings@acbl.org earlier that year). Here's the relevant quote from http://www.acbl.org/...ion-Minutes.pdf

Quote

If after 1C-2C-3N Declarer leads a diamond when Dummy is void and says “ruff it.”
1. What is Dummy to say?
2. Has Declarer called a low club?
A. The call to “ruff it” brings into question the concept of “Declarer’s Incontrovertible Intent.” Dummy is Declarer’s agent—if Dummy was absent at the time it is clear that Declarer would reach for a club to play to the trick.
B. Dummy should endeavor not to announce the contract should it become clear that Declarer has “lost his way.”
C. In private conversations with Declarers, most would admit that they had intended to call a small club and that they had indeed forgotten the contract.
D. Even if clubs were not put in the trump slot it may still be an Incontrovertible Intent to play a card from the trump slot. (Such as situations where dummy has put Declarer’s long suit in the trump slot.)
E. In rare cases Declarers are making a glib statement. Here it should be obvious that it is not Declarer’s Incontrovertible Intent to call for a non-existent trump card.
F. We should not allow Dummy to claim he is “preventing an irregularity” by trying to point out he can’t play a card that doesn’t exist. He may try to prevent a subsequent lead from the wrong hand.

So in the ACBL, at least, this is settled.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-July-20, 15:27, said:

Barry can say what he meant. What I was thinking of probably predates any "aids to memory" rule.

Most trump indicators predate all the rules of bridge. If you want to remind yourself of what they are, you could try a Google search for "trump indicator".

[blackshoe]

Nah. It's more fun to stumble along, trying to remember.

Okay, I confess. I clicked the link. Lots of pictures. Apparently these things were popular during the 19th Century, whist days, up to about the 1930s, when contract became the in thing. The article I read didn't say, but probably these things were fairly quickly outlawed in contract, if they were ever legal.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-July-20, 06:30, said:

As part of that process, he examines the bidding and play so far, and asks declarer what he thought the contract was when he said "ruff".
- In the unlikely event that declarer declines to answer, the director penalises him for a breach of Law 90B8.

That states "instructions from the director", not "questions from the director". I guess the TD could instruct him to respond to a question. Also if he responds that he did not know what the contract was when he said "ruff", the TD is no further forward.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2015-July-20, 17:37, said:

That states "instructions from the director", not "questions from the director". I guess the TD could instruct him to respond to a question. Also if he responds that he did not know what the contract was when he said "ruff", the TD is no further forward.

On which planet do you play your bridge?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-July-20, 17:37, said:

That states "instructions from the director", not "questions from the director". I guess the TD could instruct him to respond to a question. Also if he responds that he did not know what the contract was when he said "ruff", the TD is no further forward.

Law 85 refers to "the evidence he is able to collect". Is there a Law that says he can't ask questions of the players to collect evidence?

Although this law is about trying to rule when facts are in dispute. The fact that declarer called for a trump is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that there's no trump suit. So the only question is what suit declarer thought he was calling for -- is that in dispute? Only declarer could truly know it, the other players and the TD can only guess, so I don't know how they can dispute it.