[broze]

nige1, on 2018-January-04, 15:53, said:

IMO

• Declarers routinely break the law about playing a card from dummy and defenders rarely call the director but that doesn't change the law.
• The laws stipulates "clearly state the suit and rank". "Ruff with the two" is (at the least) ambiguous when, as here, declarer seems unclear which suit is trumps
• When players break the law, the director should resolve doubtful points in favour of non-offenders.

Hmm, to be honest I had overlooked that part of this law. I was too focused on 46.B(3) which says "if declarer designates a rank but not a suit...". Why do the laws now switch to the unhelpful word "designate" when "state" was already doing it's job perfectly well? SMH.

I still think that on strict interpretation of the words 46.B(3) should not apply in this scenario. But when taken with 46.A it does cloud the waters.

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2018-January-04, 13:04, said:

In particular, if declarer calls for a card from dummy when he's in his hand, dummy should nonetheless move the card for which declarer called to the played position. Legally, he has no other choice.

Not true - he can ensure that dummy follows suit.

The particular case I have in mind is declarer leading from his hand or dummy and a defender saying "you're in the other hand". At this point, technically the director should be called, and even dummy can do so. The director will, in almost all cases, rule that the led card be put back in the hand from which it came, and that declarer can lead any card from the appropriate hand.

No he won't he will ask declarer's RLHOthe player who is next to play a card in rotation if he wishes to accept the lead (defender may not realise he has the right - no one at my club does) - only if there is no such acceptance or play will he require the lead be made from the correct hand. - Law 53A

In the first instance, I was talking about calling for a lead from dummy when declarer's in his hand. In the second, technically you're right, but around here, nobody ever wants to accept the lead — if they did, they'd have already said so.

[BudH]

Law 41D clearly states trumps are to be placed to dummy’s right.

Therefore, “ruff it” and “trump it” both mean to play the lowest card of those cards in the column designated by law to be trumps in a trump contract (far left column in dummy from declarer’s perspective).

Yes, we’d all appreciate players following Law 46A (state both suit and rank). But the entire reason for the lengthy Law 46B existing is the law makers realize almost no player consistently adheres to Law 46A.

(My experience in play from club games to playing in national events is that at most 1% adhere to Law 46A nearly all the time. And no more than 10% avoid using phrases such as “”ruff it” or “trump it” in a trump contract.)

[pran]

BudH, on 2018-January-05, 05:13, said:

Law 41D clearly states trumps are to be placed to dummy’s right.

Therefore, “ruff it” and “trump it” both mean to play the lowest card of those cards in the column designatef by law to be trumps in a trump contract (far left column in dummy from declarer’s perspective).

Yes, we’d all appreciate players following Law 46A (state both suit and rank). But the entire reason for the lengthy Law 46B existing is the law makers realize almost no player consistently adheres to Law 46A.

(My experience in play from club games to playing in national events is that at most 1% adhere to Law 46A nearly all the time. And no more than 10% avoid using phrases such as “”ruff it” or “trump it” in a trump contract.)

Contract bridge and it's predecessors have been played for centuries.

Law 46 recognizes the evolution of this game over time and provides for compatibility between the use of old traditional terms and current specifications on how to call cards.
We just do not abandon traditions that cause no harm.

"Ruff" is one such traditional term, and there is no real reason to frown on the use of it.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-04, 09:49, said:

Technically, anything other than <rank><denomination> (in either order) is an irregularity.

True, but no rectification for this irregularity is mentioned in the Laws, except for 46B that explains how to interpret incomplete designations. The only recourse is the general option for the TD to adjust if the opponents were damaged.

The Law also says that declarer should state the card "clearly". Does that mean that if he mumbles or speaks too softly, dummy can't ask him to repeat it because that would be calling attention to the irregularity of not speaking clearly?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-January-05, 10:08, said:

The Law also says that declarer should state the card "clearly". Does that mean that if he mumbles or speaks too softly, dummy can't ask him to repeat it because that would be calling attention to the irregularity of not speaking clearly?

That would be silly, so the answer is probably "yes".

[nige1]

In the OP case, had RR said "Ruff with ♥2", would Pran and co still rule that his intention was to play ♠3?

[nige1]

pran, on 2018-January-05, 05:51, said:

"Ruff" is one such traditional term, and there is no real reason to frown on the use of it.

Except when it's breaking the law -- it's an illegal designation when playing a card from dummy.

Players shouldn't be free to chose which Bridge rules to obey; nor should directors be free to ignore them, however stupid.

[pran]

The most important Law in bridge is Law 74, and Law 74A1 says:
A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.

I find SB consistently violating that law.

[lamford]

pran, on 2018-January-06, 03:11, said:

The most important Law in bridge is Law 74, and Law 74A1 says:
A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.

I find SB consistently violating that law.

SB does not regard it as important at all. Indeed, he often quotes from the definitions: "should": (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised)" and he thinks his average of one DP per month over the last 10 years is, in the words of Arsène Wenger, "farcical".

[lamford]

BudH, on 2018-January-05, 05:13, said:

Law 41D clearly states trumps are to be placed to dummy’s right.

Therefore, “ruff it” and “trump it” both mean to play the lowest card of those cards in the column designated by law to be trumps in a trump contract (far left column in dummy from declarer’s perspective).

Yes, we’d all appreciate players following Law 46A (state both suit and rank). But the entire reason for the lengthy Law 46B existing is the law makers realize almost no player consistently adheres to Law 46A.

(My experience in play from club games to playing in national events is that at most 1% adhere to Law 46A nearly all the time. And no more than 10% avoid using phrases such as “”ruff it” or “trump it” in a trump contract.)

I would agree that if declarer said "ruff small" there would be no problem and this would be interpreted, by any TD, as playing the three of spades. Would you agree that if RR had just said "the two", then the two of hearts would have to be played? How is it any different when he says "ruff with the two"? If he had said "small heart", carelessly instead of "small spade" would you allow him to ruff? I don't think so. "Ruff" has no legal significance when there is an ambiguity

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-January-06, 06:56, said:

"Ruff" has no legal significance when there is an ambiguity

Except that it can perhaps be used to determine whether "declarer's other intent is incontrovertible". The Law doesn't specify how the TD determines this, but if mannerisms, judgement about expertise, and self-serving statements about his plan can be used, surely so can informal language that everyone understands.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-January-06, 06:56, said:

I would agree that if declarer said "ruff small" there would be no problem and this would be interpreted, by any TD, as playing the three of spades. Would you agree that if RR had just said "the two", then the two of hearts would have to be played? How is it any different when he says "ruff with the two"? If he had said "small heart", carelessly instead of "small spade" would you allow him to ruff? I don't think so. "Ruff" has no legal significance when there is an ambiguity

• "ruff small" calls for the lowest trump. Law 46B1{c}.
  
• "the two" calls for the only two in dummy if there's only one. Law 46B3{b}. If there's more than one, declarer must designate which one he wants. Same law.
  
• "ruff with the two" calls for the two of trump. If that card is not in dummy, declarer may designate any legal card. Law 46B4.
  
• "small heart" calls for dummy's lowest heart. Law 46B1{c}. If hearts are not trumps, too bad.*

* "except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". That last word means "not able to be denied or disputed". We're disputing it here, so this provision does not apply.

"Ruff" certainly does have legal significance. It's evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, though, given we also have evidence that declarer thinks spades are trumps. Nonetheless, the director has to take it into account. Law 85A. That the word "ruff" does not explicitly appear in Law 46B is irrelevant.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-06, 13:11, said:

[*]"ruff small" calls for the lowest trump. Law 46B1{c}.

No, "ruff" does not call for anything. It is not a "like term" to anything in Law 46B. "small" calls for the lowest card of the suit led, in this case a diamond. Dummy cannot comply with that. I think that Law 46B should add "ruff" and then "trump" would be a like term. But I do agree with both you and barmar that it is evidence of declarer's likely intention. "two" is contradictory evidence of declarer's likely intention. The TD has to judge, erring in favour of the non-offenders.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-January-06, 14:04, said:

No, "ruff" does not call for anything.

I very strongly disagree. "Ruff" calls for a trump. Period f'ing dot, as John Ringo likes to say.

[broze]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-06, 18:52, said:

I very strongly disagree. "Ruff" calls for a trump. Period f'ing dot, as John Ringo likes to say.

You would expect this much to be obvious!

[barmar]

broze, on 2018-January-08, 03:27, said:

You would expect this much to be obvious!

to a Secretary Bird, nothing is obvious if it's not in the Laws.

[broze]

Well, I've already made my point as to why I think the terms "ruff" and "trump" do designate a suit.

Let me assume for the moment that Lamford et al are right and that these terms do not designate a suit. It will allow me to make a point about how badly one of the laws in this section is phrased:

Law 46 B.5

"If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy."

The word "as" changes the meaning from what I think is intended. On a strict interpretation the clause should mean that every time declarer says "ruff" or "trump" or "yes please" he has not designated a rank or a suit and the defence can choose whatever they want from dummy. The parenthesis "(as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning)" does not limit the meaning of the surrounding clause but acts only by way of an example. The law would be much clearer if it were re-written as follows:

"If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank, by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning, either defender may designate the play from dummy."

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-January-08, 09:22, said:

to a Secretary Bird, nothing is obvious if it's not in the Laws.

Then people should stop calling me a Secretary Bird.

[lamford]

broze, on 2018-January-08, 10:39, said:

Law 46 B.5

"If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy."

The word "as" changes the meaning from what I think is intended. On a strict interpretation the clause should mean that every time declarer says "ruff" or "trump" or "yes please" he has not designated a rank or a suit and the defence can choose whatever they want from dummy.

The declarer, who says "yes please", or "play" or "follow" is protected by the parenthetical clause in 46B: "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", and this is the case for any other (potentially) incomplete designations such as "ruff", "overtake", "duck" etc, even if they are not covered in Law 46. If someone at the North London club did call the TD when someone just said "follow", and I was directing, I would punish him under 74A5 or 74B2, which cannot be appealed as far as I can see, certainly if I disallow an appeal under Law 83 and apply Law 91A. And SB never calls the TD unless he thinks he can get a ruling in his favour or, of course, if the Laws require him to do so.