What does "ruff" mean?

[broze]

The whole point of this case is that "ruff" only designates a particular suit if declarer is presumed to know what the trump suit is, but this is not necessarily the case with RR.

 

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.

[lamford]

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.

When ChCh is partnering a very poor player, he positively encourages him or her never to state the trump suit, and to state "ruff low" or "ruff high" as they choose. That way, he can (according to some on here) make sure that dummy ruffs instead of accidentally discarding. We have all ruffed with the wrong trump suit before; I agree with barmar that "ruff" has no meaning whatsoever. It allows dummy to participate in the play, and if the designation is otherwise incomplete, and a card of that rank is in dummy, it has to be played.

[nige1]

When ChCh is partnering a very poor player, he positively encourages him or her never to state the trump suit, and to state "ruff low" or "ruff high" as they choose. That way, he can (according to some on here) make sure that dummy ruffs instead of accidentally discarding. We have all ruffed with the wrong trump suit before; I agree with barmar that "ruff" has no meaning whatsoever. It allows dummy to participate in the play, and if the designation is otherwise incomplete, and a card of that rank is in dummy, it has to be played.

A counter-example is "win cheaply" where the law encourages dummy to use his superior counting-ability to win breath-taking finesses.

 

IMO the law should be simplified to render all such designations illegal and to actively discourage them.

[broze]

I agree with barmar that "ruff" has no meaning whatsoever.

 

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.

[lamford]

A counter-example is "win cheaply" where the law encourages dummy to use his superior counting-ability to win breath-taking finesses.

 

IMO the law should be simplified to render all such designations illegal and to actively discourage them.

Indeed. If RR reaches a two-card ending with AQ opposite xx and leads towards the AQ and then says "oh, you had better win that", dummy would be correct to play the queen if he knows that the person over the queen cannot have the king of that suit led. 46B1(b) allows dummy to participate in the play, wrongly in my opinion, in that it states:

 

"If he directs dummy to ‘win’ the trick, he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick."

 

This is fine if dummy is last to play, but wrong if he is second or third to play, and a proposed correction sent to the WBLFC was deemed to be too late for inclusion in the most recent revision.

[gwnn]

We have all ruffed with the wrong trump suit before; I agree with barmar that "ruff" has no meaning whatsoever.

1) Not from dummy. You're overstating your case by orders of magnitude here.

2) If "ruff" has no meaning whatsoever, why did you use the word in the same sentence and expected us to understand it?

3) broze asked you what you do. Do you actually sit there pretending that you didn't hear anything? You answered with something that a cartoon character is doing.

[lamford]

1) Not from dummy. You're overstating your case by orders of magnitude here.

2) If "ruff" has no meaning whatsoever, why did you use the word in the same sentence and expected us to understand it?

3) broze asked you what you do. Do you actually sit there pretending that you didn't hear anything? You answered with something that a cartoon character is doing.

I assumed broze's question was rhetorical. I do not pretend for one moment that I or anyone else would do anything other than play a small trump when told to ruff, nor do I pretend that anyone would not understand it. The lack of a meaning is only in the legal sense. If dummy is asked to ruff small, of course dummy plays a trump, because the requirement to state a rank and suit is breached every hand by almost everyone. When dummy is asked to ruff with a specified rank not in the trump suit, then declarer suffers from his failure to name a rank and a suit, however. Words like "ruff" are designations not even covered in the insufficient designations such as "small", "win", etc, so it is logical to rule that a rank was designated but not a suit. We now only need to consider whether RR's different intention was incontrovertible.

[sanst]

A counter-example is "win cheaply" where the law encourages dummy to use his superior counting-ability to win breath-taking finesses.

 

IMO the law should be simplified to render all such designations illegal and to actively discourage them.

And that would stop these? You would call a director if somebody says "win cheaply"? I can assure you that you would be as popular as any SB in a club. Bridge is a card game, not a training for lawyers, and it should be fun to play, which would be impossible if you force everybody to stick meticulously to the rules.

[barmar]

For me, if everyone at the table understands what suit is meant by "ruff" then it is clearly a designation of suit.

But how do you know that everyone understands what suit is meant? This is a case where it's possible that declarer doesn't.

 

The basic problem is that even though 46B is fairly specific regarding the incomplete designations that are allowed (although "words of like meaning" allows for some interpretation), everyone treats them more like examples; we follow the spirit of the law, not the letter, and other traditional language is also used frequently and understood by everyone. The de facto rule is essentially the one nige1 suggested: if the designation is unambiguous and obvious to the other players, it's OK.

 

I'm sure we've all heard and accepted much worse, like when there's a singleton in the led suit in dummy, declarer says something like "yes" or just points or waves toward it.

[blackshoe]

Technically, anything other than <rank><denomination> (in either order) is an irregularity. If dummy sits still ("it's not a proper designation, so I can't do anything") he draws attention to the irregularity, in violation of Law 43A1{b}. So he must, it seems, do his best to comply with the declarer's instruction. Having done so, if no one says anything, play continues. If anyone objects (again, dummy cannot) attention has been drawn to an irregularity and now all four players are responsible for calling the director.

 

What should the director do when called to the table? I would treat "ruff" as calling for the smallest trump. True, this is not explicitly in Law 46B, but I think "ruff" designates a suit, so Law 46B2 applies. If declarer says "ruff with the two, and there is no 2 of trumps in dummy, he has called for a card not in dummy and Law 46B4 applies — declarer can specify any card that is actually in the dummy.

 

Side note: this doesn't really have anything to do with this case, but it's a pet peeve and it came up twice yesterday, so... any player, including dummy, can attempt to prevent an irregularity. However, once the irregularity has occurred, there are no more "attempts". Dummy can't say anything; he would be drawing attention to the irregularity. 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. If the irregularity is declarer's, then if a defender says something he draws attention to the irregularity, and the director should be called. 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.

 

Joost is right that in neither of these cases is the director likely to be called, and that in both of them if the director is always called, she's going to be very busy, and the game will be delayed. These are not good things, but neither is allowing players to make their own rulings or to decide when they are and are not going to call the director. On balance, I wouldn't be a stickler for calling in these fairly simple situations (which means I'm doing just what I just suggested is not a good thing, of course) but there has to be a line somewhere, and I'm not at all sure where exactly that is.

[weejonnie]

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

[broze]

because the requirement to state a rank and suit is breached every hand by almost everyone. When dummy is asked to ruff with a specified rank not in dummy, then declarer suffers from his failure to name a rank and a suit, however.

 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

The de facto rule is essentially the one nige1 suggested: if the designation is unambiguous and obvious to the other players, it's OK.

 

Again I would argue that the designation "ruff" is unambiguous and obvious.

[nige1]

When calling for a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.

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.

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 law 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.

[sanst]

Technically, anything other than <rank><denomination> (in either order) is an irregularity. If dummy sits still ("it's not a proper designation, so I can't do anything") he draws attention to the irregularity, in violation of Law 43A1{b}. So he must, it seems, do his best to comply with the declarer's instruction. Having done so, if no one says anything, play continues. If anyone objects (again, dummy cannot) attention has been drawn to an irregularity and now all four players are responsible for calling the director.

In this case ChCh would have played the three, if he was to do his best to comply with the instruction. SB would have exploded the same way, so what is the difference? As a dummy I'm used to comply with my partner's instructions, unless it would be a revoke, also when she is in her own hand. I play the card she called for unless an opponent draws attention to the irregularity. But when I'm ordered to play a card that's not on the table, I say so. Whatever you do, you draw attention to the irregularity or you partake in the game. Scylla and Charybdis, but no Thetis to guide you here.

[gwnn]

I assumed broze's question was rhetorical. I do not pretend for one moment that I or anyone else would do anything other than play a small trump when told to ruff, nor do I pretend that anyone would not understand it. The lack of a meaning is only in the legal sense. If dummy is asked to ruff small, of course dummy plays a trump, because the requirement to state a rank and suit is breached every hand by almost everyone. When dummy is asked to ruff with a specified rank not in dummy, then declarer suffers from his failure to name a rank and a suit, however. Words like "ruff" are designations not even covered in the insufficient designations such as "small", "win", etc, so it is logical to rule that a rank was designated but not a suit. We now only need to consider whether RR's different intention was incontrovertible.

Thanks for your honesty. However, you still didn't answer my first point. I certainly have "ruffed" from dummy when in 3NT and perhaps also "ruffed" with the wrong suit when I'm playing from my hand, but I don't think I have ever been close to ruffing with the wrong suit* when dummy is set up properly. I am not a mind reader, but I think most club players have the same record. Perhaps some of it is due to "help" from dummy, perhaps not. But I'm definitely not convinced that "everyone has ruffed with the wrong suit."

 

*-and this is not just because my partner knew which is the trump suit. I also have never had the intention to use the wrong trump suit. Trick 1 snaps me out of it (when dummy puts the trump suit to their right).

[broze]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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". B-)

[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]

"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]

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".