[blml] played or not?

[Steve Wright]

In message <46B90BF5.9070105 at NTLworld.com>, Nigel <Guthrie at NTLworld.com> 
writes
>[Herman de Wael]
>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?
>
>[Sven Pram]
>Why would anybody even think the possibility that a Diamond has been
>called from dummy? "Ruff" refers to a non-existent denomination.
>

A convincing argument

>[André Steffens]
>To me it seems that declarer's intention was incontrovertible to  play
>a small diamond.
>

Another convincing argument

Now what do I do?
>
>[Grattan Endicott]
>+=+ Your deuce nominates a card - by rank or suit or both. "Ruff "
>does not designate a card. It designates an intended play. Laws 45 and
>46 are concerned with the designation of cards,except that 46B5 deals
>with plays where no card is designated. +=+
>

Aha - Something I can disagree with.

So if in a trump contract, if declarer says "ruff", then according to 
Gratten, this does not designate a card and so Law 46B5 applies. This 
means that as a defender I can name a non-trump in the dummy to be 
played.

That can't be right!

Still not sure which of the two convincing arguments convince me more 
though.
-- 
Steve Wright
Leicester, England