Help
Contract 7♠ by South. Lead ♠J. Table result 7♠=
The final of the Club Teams at a North London Club was this Tuesday. The Rueful Rabbit had recently taken up Exclusion Blackwood which he (ab)used at every opportunity, and his 5H on the above hand was a huge overbid. SB, North, who tended to have a lot to spare when he raised RR, owned up to his keycard, and this was enough to propel the Rabbit into 7♠. West, Peter the Parrot, the Emeritus Professor of Pedantry, led the jack of spades, following the rule of leading trumps against a grand slam. RR won with the queen of spades, East pitching a heart, unblocked the king of clubs, ruffed a heart, cashed the ace of clubs, pitching a diamond, ruffed a club, ruffed a second heart, and ruffed his last club. Now he played a diamond to the ace and ruffed a diamond reaching this four-card ending:
RR paused for thought, if that is not a misuse of the word. He suspected that West had a trump higher than the nine, so he did not want to ruff a heart low. He was undecided whether to draw the last trump before playing a heart. He also thought there were three hearts still out, and was confident his eight of diamonds was not a winner. He thought, therefore, that the only chance was either to pin the queen of hearts or bring down the ace of hearts. They looked about equal to the rabbit. and after some thought he called for the king. SB who had worked out the layout, immediately led the king of spades. PP, West, quickly chipped in with "That was an incomplete designation. I think RR meant the king of hearts." Vera the Vixen, East, who had worked out what was going to happen, agreed, and said "We need the director". The TD came and established that the Rabbit did not really have a clue whether he intended to draw the last trump before trying to pin the queen of hearts, ruled that declarer's intention was not incontrovertible. SB immediately butted in: "Then you have no choice TD, but to insist that declarer plays the king of trumps, the suit "in which" dummy won the last trick." He warmed to his task. "I think the expression 'in which' is ludicrous when dummy ruffs, but it is not the only ludicrous expression in the laws", and I understand from both gordontd and his predecessor that the interpretation of this clause is that dummy has to lead a trump when he makes an incomplete designation of rank when dummy ruffs the previous trick, assuming there is trump of that rank in dummy:
46B3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit:
(a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.
The TD thought for a while and ruled that the king of spades was a played card. VV, East, had no defence to the overtaking trump squeeze of course, and RR soon notched up his grand slam.
SB was gloating. I have had one overtaking trump squeeze before, but that was as declarer. I have been waiting 54 years to perform one as dummy. The same length of time curiously that the ambiguous wording has been present in the Laws. I guess an OTS is a bit of a rara avis.
PP was annoyed. "I think dummy suggested a play, or participated in the play", he objected. "We want to appeal this." "Au contraire", replied SB. "I was just playing the requested card, and following Law 43B when an incomplete designation occurred. If I had asked "which king?" I would indeed have been suggesting a play."
VV was also unhappy. "Why did you not lead my suit?", she asked. "Then declarer is an entry short for the overtaking trump squeeze". "Curious hand," observed the Owl. "The only way for the rabbit to make 7♠ is to make an incomplete designation at trick 9, with a top-class dummy".
How do you rule as an AC?
