[blml] played or not ?

[Brian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:59:01 +0100
"David Barton" <david.j.barton at lineone.net> wrote:

> Can we go back to basics.
> 
> Consider 5 declarers who have arrived at 3N after
> an uncontested auction of 1D - 3D// 3N.
> Each deluded declarer imagines he is playing in
> diamonds and attempts to ruff a spade in dummy.
> 
> Declarer A instructs "ruff"
> Declarer B instructs "ruff small"
> Declarer C instructs "ruff with the 3"
> Declarer D instructs "ruff with the 3 of diamonds"
> Declarer E instructs "3 of diamonds".
> 
> Of these only declarers D and E have complied with proper
> procedure in accordance with L46A.
> 
> Which declarers have played the 3 of diamonds?
> 

Well, I'd argue that it's only declarer E. 

Ruff, IMHO, designates a small trump. "With the" qualifies the
designation of "ruff", they're all part of the same designation (see
below). L46b4 tells us that the call is void if the card is not in
dummy, and there are no trumps. It isn't *possible* to ruff wuth the
D3. 

For those of you who think that declarer D has designated two cards,
and the second designation stands, perhaps you might like to consider
the following three card scenario. The contract is in spades. 

North is Dummy and has AK2 of spades. 
East has two small hearts and the singleton Queen of spades. 
South is on lead and has three small clubs
West has three small diamonds. 

South leads a club, West plays a diamond, South instructs dummy 'ruff
with the king of spades'. Are you going to give East his Queen on the
grounds that South designated two cards, or are you going to accept
that South merely qualified the 'ruff' instruction? If you think that
declarer 'D' above designated two cards, then surely my declarer did so
too? 


Brian. 

- -- 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGyX+cX39R2QaHMdMRAtRcAKClha4UP5RAhlMz3Hz88we28O31dgCfXyF6
m6GxTXukwThmmYOa23Iat/M=
=kPHU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----