broze

I agree with Arend - I think 2S is pretty normal with 4♦ support.

Out of interest why did you not bid Michael's?

I thought you must have. :rolleyes: It is a nice theme anyway - thanks for sharing.

It is a best hand tournament and East has already shown up with AKQ♣ and K♦

Sorry, I don't get it. You took the finesse when it was marked with West by the point count?

Yes, 4♠

It's well know that LoTT falls down with these high level decisions. I like 5H because it has a few ways to win over double: - It makes - It is a good save - They push on to 6m and go off Double only really wins when they are not making 5D and we are not making 5M. I accept this is more likely than any of the above which is why it's close but I still think it's best.

I am fine with 5♥. 6♥ would be potty with two empty(ish) doubletons. My next choice is double which could easily be right but ODR too good for that imo.

Second 8 boards of set 2 vs Art 3.5 - 4.5 GG

Well played Art and good luck in the rest. I'll finish the last 8 boards this evening for completeness.

I agree with you because it is no loss to overtake, partner is not leading from Tx here. However, I would expect partner to lead low from T9xxx.

Okay, hopefully I will get a chance to play one set on Thursday and the remaining boards on Sunday. If the other matches finish before this then I am happy to stick with the concession.

This is shocking!!

Firstly, shuba, I have never let a challenge expire against you (whether accepted or not) so I have no idea what you are talking about. Art, I simply couldn't find the time on this one I'm afraid - the boards I did play I played on my phone while travelling (and played very badly). I have a lot on at work and other commitments (which I did not forsee at the outset of the event) and I am going to continue to struggle to find time this week. Having read your post above I think it is better therefore if I concede the match. You have outplayed me so far in any case.

A third(!) tie between me and stoppiello means I squeak through. Thanks for the game.

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."

You would expect this much to be obvious!

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.

Why then does the law say "designate" a rank and suit and not "name" one? "Ruff" designates the trump suit. I don't agree with blackshoe that virtually every trick of every hand is an irregularity. Again I would argue that the designation "ruff" is unambiguous and obvious.

If, when you play as dummy and declarer says "ruff small", you take no action because the phrase has no meaning but rather wait for declarer to finish his designation then I suppose I can respect this view. Somehow I doubt it though. For me, if everyone at the table understands what suit is meant by "ruff" then it is clearly a designation of suit.

Seriously? Say you are dummy for a very incompetent declarer and they said "ruff small", do you just sit there until they explicitly state the trump suit? In this RR case it's just as possible that he has mis-seen the card in dummy. To take a more philosophical approach, there is no way that the natural meaning of the word "ruff" as a "designation" can be predicated on whether or not declarer knows what trumps are. The interpretation of any designation should be an objective one. When declarer says "ruff" the meaning to everyone at the table is "play a card in the trump suit", no matter what declarer might be intending.

Again I would argue that although he didn't say the name of a suit, he did designate one by the word "ruff".

If you forced me to adjust, I would argue this line that dummy has interfered in the play. However, I still don't think it works because in my opinion there is no damage, even if declarer had forgotten what trumps were. Consider what would happen if dummy stays silent or says "that card is not in dummy". Declarer would either remember that spades were trumps or at the very least ask for clarification of the contract. It is taking a very dim view of RR if you think he would say something like "yes it is I can see the heart 2 right there!" As the course of events would probably be the same whether or not dummy made the comment there is no damage, ergo no adjustment.

I disagree. It seems clear to me that saying "ruff" is designating a suit: the trump suit. Therefore the card he asked for is not on the table and the call is invalid under 46.4. I don't see what the fact that "ruff" is not defined in the laws has to do with anything; it's still a designation.

I disagree. If a puzzle is any good, any conditions should be stated in it.