[blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy?

[Hirsch Davis]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Herman De Wael" <hermandw at skynet.be>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Law 45D - Was card misplayed by Dummy?


>
> Look at it this way. You are called at the table where the following
> has just happened.
> -"tu coupes" (they're speaking french)
> -dummy takes a spade
> -"no, I said ruff!"
> -"well, so?"
> -"with a diamond, not a spade, silly"
> -"you're the silly one, we're playing 4Sp, not 5Di!"
> -"Director"
>

Spade originally designated and legally played. Declarer not allowed to 
change to a diamond since he was awakened by the play, and has therefore had 
pause for thought. WTP? Easy ruling.

Here's a tougher one, I think.  Spades are trump.  Declarer says "ruff with 
a small diamond".  Since diamonds are not trump, they obviously cannot be 
used to ruff.  If I'm defending, Declarer's intent to ruff is clear to me, I 
tell him the correct contract, we have a good laugh, he plays a spade, and 
the Director never hears about it. Anything else is pure lawyering IMO (in 
its perjorative sense). But what should a Director rule if a defender calls 
on this one?  The statement has some internal inconsistencies...

Hirsch Davis
Rockville, MD