[blml] Réf. : played or not?

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
****************************

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Réf. : played or not?


>
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Herman De Wael wrote:
>
>> So saying that the word ruff
>> does not refer to a card in dummy is, IMO, wrong.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't say that. I said that
> "ruff" calls for a card not in dummy. Different thing altogether.
>
+=+ I suggest you have to go to Law 46B5.
        Declarer has indicated a 'play'.
        In what he said he did not indicate a rank or suit.
        That seems to be what 46B5 says. The parenthesis
        has no part in the substance of the law.
                                                            ~ Grattan ~ 
+=+