nige1, on 2018-January-04, 15:53, said:
- Declarers routinely break the law about playing a card from dummy and defenders rarely call the director but that doesn't change the law.
- The laws stipulates "clearly state the suit and rank". "Ruff with the two" is (at the least) ambiguous when, as here, declarer seems unclear which suit is trumps
- When players break the law, the director should resolve doubtful points in favour of non-offenders.
Hmm, to be honest I had overlooked that part of this law. I was too focused on 46.B(3) which says "if declarer designates a rank but not a suit...". Why do the laws now switch to the unhelpful word "designate" when "state" was already doing it's job perfectly well? SMH.
I still think that on strict interpretation of the words 46.B(3) should not apply in this scenario. But when taken with 46.A it does cloud the waters.