declarer asks dummy to ruff playing NT

[Fluffy]

dummy has

♠-

♥KQJ10xx

♦AQx

♣AK9x

 

 

2♥-2♠

3♣-6NT

 

 

after a diamond lead, dummy wins the ace, crosses to hand with ♥A and plays ♠K covered by the ace and asks dummy to ruff clearly thinking he is playing 6♥. Dummy points out that the contract is 6NT and discards a club instead.

 

Can declarer switch to a club? would it had mattered if declarer had pointed directly to a heart with the finger?

[blackshoe]

Are you sure declarer thinks he's playing in 6♥? Can he not mistakenly believe he's in 6♣? IAC, dummy is not allowed to place any card in the played position without instruction from declarer. If declarer's is deemed to have called for a low heart, then dummy placing a club in the played position is an infraction of law.

 

If declarer is deemed to have called for a card not in dummy (there is no card with which to "ruff", since the contract is 6NT) then yes, he can designate a club instead of a heart. Again, though, if dummy has already placed a low club in the played position, without instruction, that's an infraction, and the TD will have to consider, after the play, whether to adjust the score.

 

So, if declarer is deemed to have called for a low heart, then a low heart is played, and he cannot change it. If he is deemed to have called for a card not in dummy, then he can (and in fact must) select a new designation, which could be any of the cards actually in dummy. In either case, if dummy has suggested that declarer play a club, that's an infraction with which the TD must deal.

 

I would say that if declarer pointed at the hearts (or at a low heart) when saying "ruff", then he's definitely designated a heart, and that play stands. If it's unclear, I would investigate and decide after I find out what suit declarer thinks is trumps.

[Fluffy]

sorry I probably was unclear, dummy jus tpointed out that contract is 6NT so she couln't ruff, the declarer switched to discarding a club.

 

at the table it was pretty clear what he though he was playing, first becaue hearts where at trump position in dummy, second because of the chat at the table althou that's a bit irrelevant to director probably.

[blackshoe]

Chat is evidence; it may well be relevant to a ruling.

[mjj29]

sorry I probably was unclear, dummy jus tpointed out that contract is 6NT so she couln't ruff, the declarer switched to discarding a club.

 

at the table it was pretty clear what he though he was playing, first becaue hearts where at trump position in dummy, second because of the chat at the table althou that's a bit irrelevant to director probably.

In this case I don't think dummy can avoid informing declarer that the contract is no trumps - After declarer says "ruff" what is dummy supposed to do? Sit there in silence doing nothing? I _think_ dummy is able to say "I can't play the card you asked me to, because I don't have it", but saying that you don't have any trumps in dummy kinda gives the game away. Is that interfering with the game?

[Ant590]

After declarer says "ruff" what is dummy supposed to do? Sit there in silence doing nothing?

I was once told that this is exactly what dummy should do in this situation.

[dburn]

I imagine that as dummy, I would ask "ruff with what?" This question will probably not alert declarer (yet) to the fact that there are no trumps - he will specify a "trump" with which to ruff, and that will become a played card. If on the other hand I were to sit there doing nothing, this might be construed as communication something to declarer about the play, a violation of Law 43A1c.

 

There seems to me to be a case for an addition to Law 46 in order to cover this specific position.

[blackshoe]

It does seem to be a hole in the laws. I think I would ask "which card, please?" or "I'm sorry?", which I would also do if I didn't hear what declarer said.

 

Sitting there doing nothing seems counterproductive, even if it isn't construed to communicate something about the play.

[pran]

I imagine that as dummy, I would ask "ruff with what?" This question will probably not alert declarer (yet) to the fact that there are no trumps - he will specify a "trump" with which to ruff, and that will become a played card. If on the other hand I were to sit there doing nothing, this might be construed as communication something to declarer about the play, a violation of Law 43A1c.

 

There seems to me to be a case for an addition to Law 46 in order to cover this specific position.

This position is perfectly covered by Law 46B4. (The call for a trump in a NT contract is void.)

[blackshoe]

I think the point we're discussing here, Sven, is not Law 46B4, but Law 43A1{b}. Declarer has committed an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. So what is he to do? It is accepted that dummy may ask for clarification of the card designated if, for example, he does not hear it clearly, although I cannot, at the moment, find a law that says so. It has been suggested that he do nothing. It has also been suggested that doing nothing may be construed as calling attention to an irregularity. So, again, what is he to do?

[dburn]

I imagine that as dummy, I would ask "ruff with what?" This question will probably not alert declarer (yet) to the fact that there are no trumps - he will specify a "trump" with which to ruff, and that will become a played card. If on the other hand I were to sit there doing nothing, this might be construed as communication something to declarer about the play, a violation of Law 43A1c.

 

There seems to me to be a case for an addition to Law 46 in order to cover this specific position.

This position is perfectly covered by Law 46B4. (The call for a trump in a NT contract is void.)

It is not at all clear to me that the position is "perfectly covered" (or covered at all) by Law 46B4:

 

If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

For this Law to apply, it must be shown that there is some card for which declarer has called, but that card is not in dummy. But when declarer says "ruff", and there are no trumps in dummy, for which card (indeed, for which suit) has declarer called?

 

Even when there are trumps in dummy, one imagines a position like this (such as could easily arise from something akin to the conditions of the actual deal):

 

Declarer leads a spade, and asks dummy to ruff. Dummy picks up a club, whereat declarer says "no, no - ruff!" The contract is in fact 6♣, but declarer thinks it is 6♥, and his "different" and "incontrovertible" intention (see Law 46B) was that dummy should play a heart to this trick. As far as the Law is concerned, should dummy be considered to have played the club or the heart?

[pran]

I think the point we're discussing here, Sven, is not Law 46B4, but Law 43A1{b}. Declarer has committed an irregularity, dummy is not permitted to call attention to it. So what is he to do? It is accepted that dummy may ask for clarification of the card designated if, for example, he does not hear it clearly, although I cannot, at the moment, find a law that says so. It has been suggested that he do nothing. It has also been suggested that doing nothing may be construed as calling attention to an irregularity. So, again, what is he to do?

First of all, Law 46B4 applies in every case when declarer calls a card that doesn't exist in dummy, so your question is really what action dummy is supposed or allowed to take when Law 46B4 applies.

 

Declarer calls the Ace of hearts, dummy has no Ace of hearts so the call is void and no card has (yet) been played from dummy.

 

Declarer calls a trump when the contract is in NoTrump, dummy has no trump so the call is void and no card has (yet) been played from dummy.

 

Why should not Law 42B2 (He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer) be applicable in either of these situations? Dummy may for instance simply say: "I have no Ace of hearts" or "I have no trump", effectly saying "I cannot comply with your call".

[pran]

I imagine that as dummy, I would ask "ruff with what?" This question will probably not alert declarer (yet) to the fact that there are no trumps - he will specify a "trump" with which to ruff, and that will become a played card. If on the other hand I were to sit there doing nothing, this might be construed as communication something to declarer about the play, a violation of Law 43A1c.

 

There seems to me to be a case for an addition to Law 46 in order to cover this specific position.

This position is perfectly covered by Law 46B4. (The call for a trump in a NT contract is void.)

It is not at all clear to me that the position is "perfectly covered" (or covered at all) by Law 46B4:

 

If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

For this Law to apply, it must be shown that there is some card for which declarer has called, but that card is not in dummy. But when declarer says "ruff", and there are no trumps in dummy, for which card (indeed, for which suit) has declarer called?

 

Even when there are trumps in dummy, one imagines a position like this (such as could easily arise from something akin to the conditions of the actual deal):

 

Declarer leads a spade, and asks dummy to ruff. Dummy picks up a club, whereat declarer says "no, no - ruff!" The contract is in fact 6♣, but declarer thinks it is 6♥, and his "different" and "incontrovertible" intention (see Law 46B) was that dummy should play a heart to this trick. As far as the Law is concerned, should dummy be considered to have played the club or the heart?

Is this a problem?

 

"Trump" is a specific suit denomination unless the contract is in NT. If declarer calls for a trump (synonymous call: "ruff") he has called the lowest card in the trump suit if such a card exists in dummy. If no such card exists, for instance because the contract is in "No Trump" or because dummy is void in trumps, Law 46B4 automatically applies.

 

To your last example I would say that declarer's incontrovertible intention was to "ruff" and that he suffered from a momentary failure in remembering which suit is trump.

[blackshoe]

Why should not Law 42B2 (He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer) be applicable in either of these situations?

Because the irregularity has already occurred.

[iviehoff]

Declarer leads a spade, and asks dummy to ruff. Dummy picks up a club, whereat declarer says "no, no - ruff!" The contract is in fact 6♣, but declarer thinks it is 6♥, and his "different" and "incontrovertible" intention (see Law 46B) was that dummy should play a heart to this trick. As far as the Law is concerned, should dummy be considered to have played the club or the heart?

To your last example I would say that declarer's incontrovertible intention was to "ruff" and that he suffered from a momentary failure in remembering which suit is trump.

Declarer had two simultaneous incontrovertible intentions, (1) to play a heart and (2) to ruff, but these incontrovertible intentions are inconsistent.

 

If declarer says "heart three" thinking it to be a trump, there is no possibility that we would allow him to change it to a club. He has clearly designated a specific card, which, just like touching it, you can't change it even if you attempt to claim an "incontrovertible intention to ruff".

 

If declarer says "ruff" thinking the card played would be the heart three, revealing that thought when he objects to a club being played, then it seems to me that should amount to precisely the same situation as above, and should result in the same conclusion. To allow him to play a club instead in this situation seems an unwarranted advantage to him.

 

Of course if declarer said "ruff" and then kept quiet when a club was played, we wouldn't know anything about it.

[iviehoff]

In this case I don't think dummy can avoid informing declarer that the contract is no trumps - After declarer says "ruff" what is dummy supposed to do? Sit there in silence doing nothing?

If the opponents draw attention to the irregularity, then that lets dummy off the hook of the inconsistent legal demands on his behaviour. I think I might just leave enough air in my response to hope that the opponents get me off the hook here, but without it being long enough to look like a meaningful refusal.

 

After that slight air, I would say something like "which card precisely?". I would argue that this is not necessarily an infraction of drawing attention to teh irregularity, because it is possible that dummy's own inattention means that he is unable to comply with incomplete designations such as "ruff". And I think we have to allow dummy to do something, because even doing nothing is an omission one has positively selected.

[mink]

Law 41C:

... declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to

be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was

doubled or redoubled.

 

There is nothing stated that declarer must ask someone, nor is stated who should tell him. So it should be legal for the dummy to say "You are playing 6nt undoubled", when the declarer has obviously a wrong idea of what the contract is. Asking something like "what card do you intend" would be talking him into something he does not intend, and nobody can expect the dummy to do this. And just sitting there and do nothing is not really an alternative, because doing nothing is an extraordinary behavior of the dummy that very likely will cause the declarer to notice the irregularity.

 

Law 46B:

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer’s

different intention is incontrovertible)

 

What was declarers intention? He did not want to play a heart or a diamond or a club, he wanted to ruff, as he said. If anything is incontrovertible it is this. So you cannot argue he meant heart; he just asked for something impossible.

 

Karl

[bluejak]

I do not like "You are playing 6nt undoubled" which seems to me pretty much like coaching. What can dummy do? Well, I recommend "I am unable to comply with your request" as being as neutral as possible, and not trying to help partner.

[pran]

I do not like "You are playing 6nt undoubled" which seems to me pretty much like coaching. What can dummy do? Well, I recommend "I am unable to comply with your request" as being as neutral as possible, and not trying to help partner.

I agree, but what is wrong with just "which card?"

 

That phrase doesn't give away any indication whether you did not hear clearly or cannot comply with the call for whatever other reason.

[Fluffy]

so all in all this is not a simple ruling :wacko: