blackshoe Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Nah. It's more fun to stumble along, trying to remember. B-) 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted July 21, 2015 Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.