[blml] Réf. : played or not?

[Matthias Berghaus]

Eric Landau schrieb:
>
> Everywhere I play, TDs universally follow Richard's approach --  
> treating "ruff" as synonymous with "small trump".  But everywhere I  
> play, Matthias' argument can be discounted, because the common  
> language of bridge players here dictates that in 3NT the four suits  
> are called spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs, whereas in 5D they are  
> called spades, hearts, trumps and clubs.  I can't say for certain  
> that I've ever heard anyone call for, e.g., "five of diamonds" from  
> dummy, intending to take a ruff in a diamond contract, rather than  
> "five of trumps".
>
> I take it that this is not universal to the bridge world (or at least  
> the English-speaking bridge world)?
>   

I cannot speak for the English-speaking bridge world (while Ed spoke for 
himself), but it is true that it is the exception rather than the rule 
for German players to call for the 2 of diamonds when diamonds are trump 
(and even if not, usually it will be "small diamond"). Less than 10 
percent for sure, might well be less than 5 percent.

>   
>> So we would indeed handle it differently when both want to play
>> identical cards. This may also be the case under option B, where we
>> would take into account what declarer actually said or did. We still
>> have a problem when he didn`t say anything.
>>
>> The bottom line is this: two players want to play the same card.  
>> How can
>> we make sure that both actually have to play it? Since the answer is
>> probably "we can`t", how do we go about finding the nearest  
>> approximation?
>>     
>
> That's easy.  We ask declarer what card he thought he was playing,  
> and leave it to Nigel to fret about the fact that an unethical  
> declarer might lie.
>   

:-)
I know at least one player who would never stoop so low as to lie to a 
creature as inferior as a TD... I am not so sure with others.
But my concern is not so much for my ability or inability to find out, 
it is for the inability of some players to perceive a good decision when 
it hits them on the knee with a hammer. Many players (especially the 
less experienced ones, or the ones who are less experienced since 1960) 
do not trust judgement decisions. So if no option has advantages over 
the other, I would go with the mechanistic approach.
 Here, though, I already voted for the judgement approach, as it feels 
"right" when we get a statement from declarer, and is no worse when we 
don`t.

Regards
Matthias