lamford Posted January 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 6, 2018 Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 "Ruff" has no legal significance when there is an ambiguityExcept 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 6, 2018 Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted January 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 [*]"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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 7, 2018 Report Share Posted January 7, 2018 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broze Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 You would expect this much to be obvious!to a Secretary Bird, nothing is obvious if it's not in the Laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broze Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 to a Secretary Bird, nothing is obvious if it's not in the Laws.Then people should stop calling me a Secretary Bird. B-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 "Cannot be appealed" is incorrect. Any ruling can be appealed. It is true that an appeals committee cannot overrule the Director in Charge (DIC) on a matter of law or on a disciplinary penalty under Law 91, but the committee can recommend he change the ruling, and the DIC would do well to seriously consider doing so in most cases. Law 83 does not permit the table director to refuse to allow an appeal. As for a disciplinary penalty, how is simply calling the director a breach of order and discipline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 As for a disciplinary penalty, how is simply calling the director a breach of order and discipline?I know that you always argue that calling the TD cannot be wrong, but I think that to do so for the purpose of disrupting the game or annoying the declarer when he uses expressions like "follow" and "play", is a breach of the etiquette. Under Law 83 I would exercise my power not to advise a contestant of his right of appeal, as I would believe that a review would not be in order. If the miscreant works out that he can still do so, but cannot in theory get the penalty changed that is up to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 How do you know his purpose was to disrupt the game or to annoy the declarer? Law 83 requires the director to inform a contestant of his right to appeal if the director believes that a review of his ruling "could well be in order". If the director doesn't believe that, he's free to ignore this law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 How do you know his purpose was to disrupt the game or to annoy the declarer? Law 83 requires the director to inform a contestant of his right to appeal if the director believes that a review of his ruling "could well be in order". If the director doesn't believe that, he's free to ignore this law.Anybody who calls the TD when declarer says something like "play" or "follow", which is clearly understood by all, is being a "tosser" and merits a DP. And I would always believe that a review of the DP was not in order, and, if the player did appeal, I would apply 91A and 91B3. If an AC advised me to remove the penalty, I would refuse, and then resign as (voluntary) TD at the club and not direct again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 If you would alter your ruling after the fact from a PP (Law 90) to a DP (Law 91) to avoid having an appeals committee overturn your penalty, I should think your club would be happy to accept your resignation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 If you would alter your ruling after the fact from a PP (Law 90) to a DP (Law 91) to avoid having an appeals committee overturn your penalty, I should think your club would be happy to accept your resignation.I would impose a DP in the first instance, as the offence would have been deliberate disruption of the game. I am sure you would not accept 184 director calls when there was an incomplete designation, which was the number (of such designations, not of TD calls) I counted at my table last week? If you did nothing, the players would vote with their feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 184? Were they all by the same player? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted February 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 184? Were they all by the same player?No, they were an average of 15 per two boards, by 12 different declarers, including me; I routinely and deliberately break Law 46A myself by not specifying the suit and rank when it is unnecessary, as does around 90% of the North London Club. I think one declarer who says, for example, "three of diamonds, please, partner; nine of diamonds, please, partner" every time is intensely irritating and distracting (and a breach of Law 74A2 in that "please" and "partner" are extraneous remarks). On this board, I am told, RR had eight incomplete designations. At trick one, he said, "follow", when the ace of diamonds was led, and on the king of diamonds he annoyingly called for "The Curse of Scotland", getting a withering look from SB. On the third diamond, as we know, he said "ruff with the two" and the TD was correctly called and ruled that the two of hearts had to be played, being the only two in dummy and declarer's different intention was not incontrovertible. East won that trick and cashed the ace of clubs and this time declarer just said "play". When drawing trumps, which by now he suspected were spades, as he recalled that the two of hearts had not won an earlier trick, RR specified "small" under the top trumps. Then under the top hearts, he just said "heart". This was fairly typical of the behaviour of the declarer on other boards, and this board alone would, technically, have required eight TD calls in Blackshoe Borough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 :unsure: :huh: :o :( 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.