[blml] Réf. : played or not?

[Herman De Wael]

Alain Gottcheiner wrote:
>  
>  
> /-------Message original-------/
>  
> /*De :*/ Herman De Wael <mailto:hermandw at skynet.be>
> /*Date :*/ 07/08/2007 12:51:01
> /*A :*/ blml <mailto:blml at rtflb.org>
> /*Sujet :*/ [blml] played or not?
>  
> The contract is 3NT but declarer is confused and he thinks  he's
> playing 5 diamonds. He plays a card from hand and instructs dummy to
> "ruff". When the table stops laughing, the director is called.
> Has the lowest diamond been played or not?
>  
>  
> We had a similar case two years ago (in 2NT vs spades).
> Since there is no trump suit, there is no card designated by the words 
> "trump" or "ruff".

Three answers, all the same.
And all wrong, I think.
The laws authorize a declarer to call the cards by whatever means. 
Calling for "the Beer card" is certainly a full indication of the 
diamond seven. So is the word "ruff". So saying that the word ruff 
does not refer to a card in dummy is, IMO, wrong.
Consider what would happen if declarer, rather than saying "ruff", 
just points at the low diamond, or picks it up. All kinds of ways to 
indicate that the 2 of diamonds is the card he intends to play.

> Come to think of it, if declarer doesn't say himself what suit he 
> believes to be trumps, how would you rule which suit he has in mind ?
> That's the way André Leplat ruled, and he was right IMHO.
>  

I don't think a declarer can honestly claim to be confused about the 
trump suit in more than one of them. I think we can settle that 
problem easily if it ever came up.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html