[blml] Réf. : played or not?

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 8/8/07, ton <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting case, which means that I do not have a clear answer.
> I do not join Grattan when he says that in this case no suit was indicated.
> When declarer thinks to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the
> diamond suit. How can that be ignored?
>
<snip>
>
> If you say he indicated the
> lowest diamond you know what to do. If you say he asked for a card which is
> not in dummy, one with trumping quality, so winning the trick that means,
> you also know what to do.
> In my opinion the laws do not tell which of those two is the right approach.
> And with my personal lenient approach to the game I would have chosen the
> second option. This seems something the laws committee should take a stand
> in. Unless it already has done so, or somebody comes up with a more
> convincing argument.
>

I am confused by one aspect of this.  Ton says, "When declarer thinks
to play in diamonds and asks to ruff he indicates the diamond suit."
He also says "If you say he indicated the lowest diamond you know what
to do."

>From these, using simple logic, I would assume ton would rule the
lowest diamond is played.  (We were originally given that declarer
thought the contract is 5D---and we know which card is considered
played when a suit is mentioned by not a rank.)

So my one confusion from this post is why did ton say, "I would have chosen the
second option"---given that logic applied to his earlier statements
would imply the first option.

-Jerry Fusselman