dburn

I am not sure I follow this. 3NT has no "systemic meaning" - partner is not allowed to bid it according to "the system", unless "the system" says that it shows, more or less strongly than 4♣ would, a desire for the 3♣ bidder to bid 5♣ if there is further competition. It seems to me that you are arguing that "the system" does in fact say this, because "the system" says otherwise that 3NT does not exist, yet partner must have had some "possible systemic" reason for bidding it. But I don't think you can argue that way in the presence of UI; you cannot make up "the system" as you go along. 100% of four pretty good players surveyed this afternoon at TGRs shrugged and passed in the given circumstances: one said explicitly "if partner hadn't alerted 3♣ as strong I would pull, because to me this auction suggests a save, but once partner's done that I can't pull." Your argument appears to me to be begging the question: "partner wouldn't suggest a save with three aces, so she can't have three aces, so she can't be bidding 3NT to play." But partner isn't "suggesting a save with three aces" - you are making up that bit; partner is bidding 3NT to play with three aces because she thinks it might make. In short: where a call has no "possible systemic meaning", all possible anti-systemic meanings must be considered, because all possible meanings are by definition anti-systemic. By the way, was 3NT alerted? If not, why not?

Well, partner could have five clubs to the ace and another couple of aces - that would make 3NT facing queen-seventh of clubs and out, assuming the opponents could not both lead and run the unstopped suit for five tricks. And even if they could, 3NT might be cheaper than 4♣, depending on partner's exact distribution. One can almost hear partner's anguished wail with ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦xxx ♣Axxxx: "you idiot, why didn't you let me go down one in 3NT doubled instead of making you go down two in 5♣ doubled, when they were cold for 4♥ all the time?" Sure, 3NT shows club support - no one doubts that. What everyone except you seems to doubt is that partner "must have" some ulterior motive for bidding 3NT other than the pious hope that it might make. When I last played "for Surrey" (that is: in a team including Frances and Jeffrey), sequences were being discussed such as 3♣-double-3NT (by an unpassed hand) in which the last bid was either to play if the opponents didn't double, or suggested that partner save in 5♣ if the opponents did double and thereafter reached a major-suit game, whereas 3♣-double-4♣ barred partner from saving. Or it may have been the other way round; I pleaded that I was too old to remember the method then, and I am even older now, but I expect it had some merit - most of what they suggested did, apart from some barmy doubles. But this was the first time I had heard of such a thing, and I have heard of almost everything. The principle remains the same: you can't, in the presence of UI, make it up as you go along. That's why, for example, with some 0=5=6=2 shape you can't pull after pass -1♣ - 2NT (explained by partner as spades and diamonds when the systemic meaning is hearts and diamonds) - double - 4♠ - double. Maybe partner forgot, but maybe partner was "doing a Collings" with nine or ten spades. Unless the alternatives are categorically impossible, they are logical, which is why in the original deal no one can pull to 4♣.

Because we must resolve it somehow, we resolve the "slow limit raise" case by saying that a slow action "demonstrably suggests" that partner should bid on with a hand that might pass an in-tempo limit raise (and therefore that when he does bid on, we will adjust the score if his efforts prove successful). There is no particularly logical reason for this: of course, a hand that raises 1NT slowly to 2NT might "equiprobably" have a 1.5NT bid or a 2.5NT bid; so one could take the view that nothing is "demonstrably suggested" by the raiser's tempo, and the opener can do what he likes. But we are cynics, or skeptics, or both, and in extended observation of the ways and works of Man from the Four-Mile Radius roughly to the Plains of Hindustan, we note that in the vast majority of cases when some fellow does something in a fashion that suggests he might have done something else, he is hoping that partner and not he will make the final decision for his side. We extend this to the general principle that any slow action "demonstrably suggests" that partner should not pass. When, therefore, partner does not pass and this turns out to be the winner, we are (or should be) inclined to rule against that action unless the non-pass was obvious. For what it's worth, I would not bid 4♠ for all the tea in China. When I used to do this, partner always had something like ♠xx ♥xx ♦Qxxxx ♣Q10xx. Their spades were invariably 2-2 and they could make 3♥ only with some effort; 4♥ had no chance whatsoever, while 4♠ was minus 300 in aces and kings. But of course when partner passes 4♥ slowly, he doesn't have this hand. Therefore...

Or, of course, has opened 1NT with four aces having noticed only three when he first sorted his hand. The extent to which he will thank you for pulling to a no-play 4♣ instead of a laydown 3NT is a matter of conjecture, but... It is not for you, who have described your hand in detail, to overrule partner when there is any question of UI. If partner (having given some wrong explanation of your actions) appears to have made an "impossible" bid, you are in duty bound to assume that he has some "impossible" reason for it, not to go around concluding that he "must have" misconstrued some bid that you have made. I thought we had abolished this particular cheats' charter long ago, but from the nonsense posted here I am forced to conclude that we have not.

To clarify: I will not now and would not in 2009 flout a regulation to the effect of what is alertable if I firmly believe that my opponents know at least as much about the issues involved as I do, and are capable of protecting themselves should the need arise; but if in some grey area my opponents ask questions, I personally will give them more latitude than is given them by the current OB3E (by more or less abrogating my "rights" under Law 16B). That is: if I play against you I will not alert after 2♥-pass-2♠ non-forcing, because I know [a] that I'm not supposed to and that your side is quite capable of looking after itself; but there are people whom I would inform that 2♠ was not forcing even though I'm not supposed to, because I know that they might not entertain the possibility. By the same token, I will not alert anything above 3NT even though I know that by not doing so I may cause my present opponents considerably more damage than if I had alerted. That regulation appears for a reason that I personally believe is now outdated: it is held that alerts above 3NT by and large help the bidding side more often than they help their opponents, and whereas this used to be true, nowadays it is not (since players are by and large better educated [a] in terms of not playing Gerber and in terms of understanding their responsibilities regarding UI). Still, my personal beliefs do not have very much to do with this kind of situation; if the majority view among the L&E is that the reason for the edict still holds, it is not for me to gainsay that view at the table, however much I may disagree with it as a theoretical matter. Moreover, I will continue until my dying day to forget to alert after some auction as 1♠-double-redouble-2♣-double where double is penalty, because the regulation that makes this alertable is so repugnant to the nature of the game (as viewed by an ancient such as myself) that I cannot fix it in my mind - although it is possible that I played this double as takeout in the Premier League last season (I never could be sure). Still, if my opponents claim damage because they played me rather than my partner for the missing clubs, I will accept the judgement of the Court with the best grace I may. That is why I grew a beard in the first place: so as to be able to stalk off muttering into it every now and again. This grace will also be exhibited, of course, in other cases that arise from the infractions against regulations that I may commit in following the principles I have outlined above. It hasn't happened yet, but one day I may well be dragged before the Beak for telling the opposition what I play despite something in the OB commanding me not to. As to the actual ruling, this depends on the actual explanation of the actual opening bid. For some reason, even though this bid has a yellow background in my browser, holding the mouse over it does not divulge exactly (or at all) what this information was. Perhaps you can help.

I would seek to reassure West after the event that objectively, leading a non-standard heart is probably not demonstrably suggested over the logical alternative of leading a standard heart (or some other suit) by the UI that partner thought he ought to be leading a diamond, but if West felt subjectively that it was so suggested, I would commend him warmly on his efforts to comply with the Laws. Looked at another way, I would a priori have little sympathy for North-South if after West led the ♥Q and declarer failed to take full advantage, they sought a ruling on the grounds that leading a weird heart was demonstrably suggested by the fact that East had led a diamond out of turn. Still, I can imagine some argument being advanced in a particular case that might convince me otherwise.

No - I think that South explained North's 2♣ bid as artificial when North's bid was natural, that this was misinformation, and that East-West were damaged thereby. If the Director judges that West would not have passed out 3♣ if correctly informed, he will award an adjusted score on the basis of likely outcomes had West been correctly informed. That is what it means for me that the Director "is there to use judgement". What you seem to believe is that because West was guilty of misinforming South as to the nature of East's 3♣ bid, South was therefore guiltless of misinforming West - if 3♣ were natural, then 2♣ "must have been" artificial and South was correct so to explain it. But this is nonsense: the meaning of 2♣ is not contingent upon the meaning of 3♣ (indeed, the converse is true, because North bid 2♣ before East bid 3♣), and South should not have explained it as artificial however confused he had become.

The problem is not so much with the use of "strong" per se, but with people's perception that "strong" means different things in different contexts. There is now no hand on which a player can open a "strong" and artificial one club on which another player cannot if he wishes open a "strong" and artificial two clubs. That is as it should be, of course, though it has taken rather a long time to get there. But when the opponents hear a player open a strong two clubs, they expect him to have a much better hand (as a minimum) than a player who opens a strong one club. They will not necessarily gear any part of their bidding towards constructive overcalls (whether immediate or delayed), because a strong two clubs tends to banish from their minds the possibility that the deal may belong to their side in (for example) a combined 24- or 25-point 3NT, or a "normal" major-suit game on 22-23 hcp and a decent fit. What can be done about this? Not very much, because it will take time for people's perceptions to change, and regulation cannot accelerate the process to any great extent. This is especially so because in the vast majority of cases, people who open a "strong" two clubs actually will have better minimum hands than people who open a "strong" one club, so for practical purposes the popular perception will continue to conform to reality. That is why there is an additional burden of disclosure upon people who as a matter of partnership agreement actually do open a "strong" two clubs on hands that are no better than a "strong" one club. Whether or not such a burden is actually imposed by the regulations is neither here nor there; the Laws already say enough to make it clear that you must not put the opponents at a disadvantage by preventing them from understanding in full the methods that you play.

My partners would not put down such a hand, because my partners would open four spades with that; if however they had a side king, they would open with an artificial strong bid if we were playing an artificial strong bid that included inter alia a hand with eight clear-cut tricks that was not a game force from strength. However, if some quondam partner told me that he would open 2♣ on eight solid and out, then of course I would include this possibility in my disclosure. Actually, I would alert 3♣ and explain it even unasked, if it appeared that my opponent was in some way confused by my previous explanation of 2♣. This may or may not be contrary to some regulation or other, but I really do not care; what I care about is that my opponents know my methods.

No, I wouldn't. If I could open this hand 2♣, I would explain it as "16 plus points with any distribution, or any hand meeting the rule of 25, or any hand with eight sure tricks and 12 points upwards". If my opponents did not know what the rule of 25 was, I would tell them. I would also, for avoidance of doubt, explain 3♣ as "natural, but not necessarily a solid or even a particularly strong suit". I am aware that I do not have to do this according to the Orange Book, but I would do it anyway.

Why bother to use lebensohl? Instead, just play that after 1♥-2♠, 2♥ shows a competitive raise to 3♥, while 3♥ shows a normal limit raise. That way, 2NT can be used to show invitational values in a balanced hand without primary support for partner and with at least one stopper in the opponent's suit. I am aware that Frances Hinden and her partners will be entirely unfamiliar with this concept and will need to study it carefully, but I assure her that it has at least some technical and practical merit. Meanwhile, I am unable to convince myself that the Laws intend to create a position in which a player's side is able to benefit from the player's own infraction. Despite the fact that Ton Kooijman believes it acceptable for a player to know, after 1♥-2♠-[1NT corrected to 2NT] that the 1NT/2NT bidder has a hand worth only 1NT, I do not so believe, nor can I place any construction on the words in the Laws that justifies such a belief. I should say here for the benefit of bluejak that my earlier "oops" was not intended as an ellipsis for some illegal utterance by the 1NT/2NT bidder, which would indeed be UI; instead, it was intended to convey only some hiatus during which 1NT was corrected to 2NT with (apparently) the knowledge that East intended to bid only 1NT being authorised information to West. I should also apologise to bluejak and others for any confusion that my earlier wording may have caused. Those who know me will be aware that I believe people who cannot be bothered to follow suit should be shot, in order that the game may soon (if Darwin was right) be played only by people who can be bothered to follow suit. By the same token, people who cannot be bothered to look at what the auction has actually been before making their own contribution to it should be barred from bidding not only at their current turn but for at least the rest of the session, and possibly for the rest of their natural lives. My only reservation is that this might in some cases actually improve their results, but this cannot be helped. There is a deplorable trend, initiated by the late Edgar Kaplan and (therefore) commanding support at the highest levels, to the effect that people who do something ridiculous should not necessarily get the bad results that their actions deserve. This trend led to the ridiculous Law 25B in the 1997 Code; that Law has properly been rescinded in the 2007 Code, but the equally ridiculous Law 27B has been introduced in its stead. This trend has led also to the current ridiculous interpretation of Law 12C1b in England and (for aught I know) elsewhere to the effect that if following an infraction by the enemy, a non-offending side bids or plays more or less at random but without committing an infraction itself, it is immune from the ridiculous results it might otherwise obtain. Again, this cannot be helped. As to the current problem: if Law 16D does not apply, then it does not apply and should be excluded from consideration by a Director. This does not mean that Law 16B does not apply: if a player makes an insufficient bid that he later corrects to a sufficient bid, the IB is "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". Doubtless in compiling the list of examples that appears in Law 16B the Lawmakers intended expressly to exclude information dealt with under Law 16D, but that is not what the words say. Doubtless when they wrote Law 27B the Lawmakers intended expressly that the implied provisions of Law 16D should carry over to Law 16B, but that is not what the words say either. Instead, Law 16A2 says explicitly that information from a withdrawn action is "authorised (see D)"; but since D is explicitly stated in Law 27B not to apply, this provision of Law 16A2 cannot hold, and information from a withdrawn action must be treated as extraneous per Law 16B since there is no other way in which it can be treated. This is not what the Lawmakers intended, but since what they intended is ridiculous (since it allows an offending side to benefit from its infraction), one should have no compunction in applying the letter of the Law. Nor, if necessary, the firing squad.

When on our perilous way Troubles and dangers accrue Till there's the devil to pay, How shall we carry it through? Shakespeare, that oracle true, Teacher in doubt or despair, Told us the best that he knew: Exit, pursued by a bear.

One of the less desirable consequences of announcements - indeed, one of the less desirable consequences of any regime that requires disclosure to conform to some rule set, rather than to some notion of telling the opponents what your methods are - is that the principle of full disclosure will fail to be implemented within the rule set. This would not matter very much if players were encouraged to follow the principle of full disclosure, rather than to conform to the rule set. Unfortunately, in England players are not only encouraged to conform to the rule set, but are actively discouraged both from telling the opponents what their methods are and from finding out what their opponents' methods are. If the guy to my left can open eight solid and a king with a bid that will be described by the guy to my right as "strong", then I (well, not I personally, for I've seen their sort before, but "I" as someone who might be cowed into not bidding when I ought to bid) would have a legitimate grievance if it turns out that I failed to bid when I ought to bid on some marginal hand. It is not even enough as a practical matter for my RHO to say "strong within the parameters of OB X.Y.whatever". The very fact that he has uttered the word "strong" will place my partnership, unless very experienced, on the back foot - any overcall we make will be considered obstructive rather than constructive, and we may well fail to realise the full potential of our hands just because someone told us that his partner's 13-hcp opening with no sure defensive tricks was "strong". That is why I said (and still say, despite lamford's objection) that if a partnership can make an opening that will be described as "strong" despite the absence of very much strength at all outside the long suit, it is proper for that possibility to be disclosed despite the "fact" that full disclosure would "focus on the wrong hand type". The very fact that the opener might have the wrong hand type is precisely the point on which full disclosure should cast light. I had better stop here, for otherwise I might be compelled to agree with bluejak twice in one evening. Mind you, he is the guy who thinks that disclosure should be implemented by rule sets, while I think it should be implemented conversationally. East is East, and...

I assert as fact that trick four, to which card X was played, is not (and never will be) defective. I also assert as fact that trick nine, not trick four, is defective. I do not assert, never have asserted, and never will assert, that card X was legally played to trick nine - it cannot have been, because it was legally played to trick four and was therefore ineligible for play to trick nine. I assert also that axman is beginning to remind me of those cranks who have plagued mathematicians over the years by claiming to have proved (inter alia) that pi is rational, or that an angle can be trisected by ruler and compass. I do not mean to discourage his contributions, but I do wish that he would read more carefully the arguments he seeks to gainsay.

What is wrong with pran's view of this entire discussion is that Law 67 is not "automatically triggered" by a player's holding a number of cards inconsistent with the number of tricks remaining to be played. Law 67 is "automatically triggered" when a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick. But it does not necessarily follow from the fact that a player holds a number of cards inconsistent with the number of tricks remaining to be played that the player has omitted to play a card to a trick, nor that he has played too many cards to a trick. I am weary of attempting to disabuse pran of this error - I have referred to the relevant fallacy in both English and Latin, and I find myself now in the position of the Baker in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark: I said it in Hebrew, I said it in Dutch, I said it in German and Greek, But I wholly forgot - and it vexes me much - That Norwegian is what you speak. The plain truth, as attested in several Laws, is that a player (especially dummy) may "play" a card (or have a card "played" from his hand) without relinquishing his "hold" upon it. That card is a played card; whether or not it continues to be a "held" card is supremely irrelevant.

No doubt East did not ask North what 2♣ meant because: [a] North did not alert 2♣; and it was obvious (to East and North at any rate) what 2♣ meant - it showed clubs. South's second-round double was takeout of hearts, so club bids by North and South should be as natural as they would be if the auction had started 1♥ - double - pass - 2♣ (as indeed it had started for practical purposes). East in all innocence cue-bid 3♣, and then the tray went over to the dark side of the screen. There, a profoundly confused South and an even more profoundly confused West contrived to confuse one another even more profoundly by saying and doing some nonsensical things. By his own admission, West was about to pass out 3♣ when it occurred to him to ask South what 2♣ meant. It was perhaps fortunate for West that he did so, for upon hearing South say that 2♣ was a cue bid (despite not having alerted it), West felt on firmer ground in leaving East in 3♣. That South gave West MI because of some discussion involving the meaning of 3♣ is neither here nor there; the fact is that South did misinform West as to the meaning of 2♣, and West was damaged thereby (had South correctly explained 2♣ as natural, West would not have passed out 3♣). One could of course take the view that West's pass of 3♣ was a serious error unrelated to the infraction, but I would not be so inclined; West's pass of 3♣ was certainly a serious error, but West's confusion in passing was directly related to South's infraction in misexplaining 2♣. That West committed an infraction of his own in misexplaining 3♣ is true but irrelevant; it was South's duty correctly to explain 2♣ in the context of his partnership methods, not in the context of some alternate universe that was at least partly of his own making. In short (and, be it said, not for the first time) I find myself in complete agreement with my learned brother bluejak, whose analysis of the position appears to me flawless. I have not troubled to assess in detail his weightings of the various possible outcomes had West bid 3♥; I am sure that they are at least reasonable and very probably better than that.

We have both already quoted the opening words of Law 67. These demonstrate to our satisfaction the obvious fact that a defective trick exists "when a player has omitted to play to a trick, or has played too many cards to a trick". If you do not share our opinion, so be it. Moreover, these words do not support the bluejak view that a defective trick is a trick that no longer "contains" four cards. No other words in the Laws support this view either, for the obvious reason that the view is wrong. A card played to trick four should if possible, but purely for the sake of compliance with Law 65C, be placed among the owner's played cards somewhere between the card he played to the third trick and the card he played to the fifth trick. It cannot be played to trick nine because it is not eligible for play to trick nine, having already been played to trick four. The defective trick nine must be dealt with in accordance with Law 67. This, in answer to Blue Uriah above, renders the Myles Coup illegal, and pran is quite correct when he says that the trick on which the coup is attempted should be dealt with under Law 67. If he or bluejak continues to believe, however, that the trick from which the card was withdrawn in order to perform the coup has become defective, then he or bluejak continues to be in error.

Suggest saying "strong in principle, but if he has a solid eight-card suit then he doesn't need more than a king outside." That ought to conform closely enough to published regulations and to the principle of full disclosure while being more or less comprehensible even to a bridge player.

It may or may not console you to know that this, almost word for word, was exactly the reaction of the Chief Tournament Director of the World Bridge Federation when I mentioned the "problem" to him a couple of weeks ago. In fairness, I should say that I did not mention the specifics of the original post, in which a card had not been placed among the played cards yet had been played by being called from dummy by declarer. No doubt bluejak, the original poster, had some idea in mind involving this distinction, and perhaps he will at some point share with us what that idea was despite the "distinction" being of no import whatsoever. After all, it is possible that both the WBF CTD and I may be wrong, though this is not necessarily the way to bet. As to axman's musings: I (and gordontd) know what a defective trick is. It is a trick to which at least one player has failed to contribute exactly one card. We also know what to do when a player contributes to a trick a card that he has played to an earlier trick: we regard the later trick as defective, because the card in question was ineligible for play to the later trick having already been contributed to the earlier trick. As blackshoe correctly remarks, the logistics of such a ruling may constitute a "bigger problem", but that's why they pay him the big bucks. I presume from an earlier post by gordontd that he does not believe (as I don't believe, but pran does believe) that a player with n played cards in front of him and 13-n unplayed cards in his hand cannot at some point have created a defective trick. Gordontd is by nature a far more polite and restrained person than I, which is the only thing that has so far prevented him from correctly describing this belief as complete and utter codswallop. But the truth is this: any trick properly constituted according to Laws 44 through 48 is not and can never be defective according to Law 67.

But that is not "my idea" at all, nor can I place any construction on anything I have written that would compel the conclusion that it was "my idea". In the first place, I have argued that because of the mechanics of duplicate bridge, it is meaningless or almost meaningless to speak of a trick's "containing" any cards whatsoever. It is pran, not I, who argues that because at rubber bridge one player picks up the four cards played to a trick and puts them in front of him, thus creating a physical aggregation that can be referred to as "a trick", this physical aggregation should be assumed to exist at duplicate bridge. This assertion is so ridiculous as to be put into a category referred to by scientists as "not even wrong", but he believes it, and I assume from what you have written that you believe it also. In the second place, I have consistently asserted that when four cards, one from each of four hands, are played to a trick (whether by being physically faced on the table or by being called by declarer from dummy), that trick is complete and inviolate. What happens thereafter to the physical objects contributed to the trick is a matter of supreme irrelevance, always provided that the players at the table confirm that the trick actually was played in the manner described. This means that: is more or less unmitigated bilge, though it contains (as I have already remarked) an element of truth. The trouble is that you (and pran) are wedded to the idea of a physical "trick" that "contains" a "number of (physical) cards". There is no such thing at duplicate bridge, as I have been at pains to explain. But we will pursue your analogy further, because it is not entirely hopeless. Once four carrots have been placed in a jar, we label that jar "complete". Once a jar is labelled "complete", we forget about it - we do not change the label on the jar, even if a malevolent wombat steals therefrom a carrot for some purpose that may range from global destruction to sexual gratification. For our purposes, that jar is "complete" and, because it has been consigned by us to the dustbin of history, nothing that happens thereafter can render it "incomplete". In so doing, we do not say that the jar still, or "now", contains an even number of carrots. We do not care how many carrots the jar is later found to contain. Nor should we; suppose we were paid by the hour to produce "complete" jars, and we claimed to have produced 100 but our employers paid us for 99. No tribunal in the land would uphold our employers' decision to pay us for only 99 jars if it turned out that the 100th jar had a carrot stolen from it by a wombat. In the third place: is true insofar as the word "contain" is meaningful, which by and large it is not. Rather, a defective trick is one to which some player has contributed some number of cards not equal to one. That is: is bunk. History has everything to do with it: if the historical record shows that each player contributed exactly one card to a trick, that trick was not defective and cannot later be shown in any manner whatsoever to have been, or now to be, defective Of course a card cannot become unplayed. But would you (or pran) mind explaining to me how a trick to which four players each contributed one card can later be regarded as defective (that is, by now containing three cards), other than by assuming that in fact one player did not contribute a card to the trick?

No, it is not. If at the time a trick was played it "contained" four cards, one from each player, it has not become defective merely because one of those cards has been transported elsewhere. This is simply and obviously false. If no tricks are defective, but a played card by (say) North to (say) the fourth trick has fallen to the floor, then the fifth card in North's pile will be a card that he has played to the sixth trick. This does not imply that the fourth trick, or the fifth or the sixth, was defective - it was not, nor will it ever be. So it should. But when it is not, the Director should not consider that the only possible explanation for this is a defective trick. As I have wearied of explaining to pran, this is the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". Of course, pran is quite right when he says that if a player has mixed his played cards so that the order of play cannot be ascertained, any decision as to the facts of the play will go against that player. If North claims that he played a card to the fifth trick, but that card later fell to the floor, and if nobody else at the table confirms that this in fact occurred, then a Director might very well rule against North-South on the preponderance of evidence. But if everyone is in agreement that North did in fact play to the fifth trick the card that was later found on the floor, then there is no question of applying Law 67, or Law 14, or any other Law to the detriment of North-South. I have never averred that a card can become unplayed; indeed, such derision as I have employed has been entirely against the very idea that a card can become unplayed, and I am pleased that at last there is some agreement that such a notion is farcical. What I have consistently averred is that a trick to which each of four players have contributed exactly one card is not defective and can never be regarded as, or become, defective. What you seem to assert (indeed, the first quote above repeats this assertion) is that even if all four players have contributed exactly one card to a trick, that trick can later become defective. It cannot, and the only way in which it could would be if the missing card were regarded as not having been played to the trick. Since it was played to the trick, it would have to be regarded as "not played" to the trick, or "unplayed" to the trick, for your assertion to make sense.

Of course it is a problem. Let us assume that, the Atlantic Ocean having been successfully dredged and the missing three of hearts recovered, we apply pran's beloved Law 14: Well, the card was not found among the played cards - it was found at the bottom of the ocean. So, despite its somewhat soggy state and a disagreeable odour of rotten fish that emanates from it, we restore it to the player's hand and we apply "rectification and penalties" accordingly. Of course, this is absurd and no Director in his right mind would actually do it. We may try to correct the absurdity by deciding that the card actually belongs among the played cards (because it was played), but we are then compelled by Law 14 to apply Law 67, which manifestly does not apply because there was manifestly no defective trick. As I have remarked, Law 14 is in itself seriously defective - but not as defective as the kind of reasoning that attempts to apply it in a position where it does not and cannot hold.

I believe that Law 73 is intended to prohibit communication by other than calls and plays only of information that is supposed to be communicated solely by calls and plays. That is, I do not believe that during the play, this exchange between declarer and dummy: Declarer "Whose round is it?" Dummy "Yours." Declarer "OK, here's some money, go and get the drinks." is prohibited by Law 73 or any other Law, even though it is communication between partners, it occurs during the play, and it is not effected only by means of calls and plays. Of course, if it were later found that dummy says "Yours" in such positions only when declarer should finesse and "Mine" when declarer should play for the drop, that would be a different matter altogether - a violation of Law 73B2. By the same token, I do not believe that this exchange between declarer and dummy: Declarer "How many diamonds do you have?" Dummy "Seven." is prohibited by Law 73 or by any other Law, even even though it is communication between partners, it occurs during the play, and it is not effected only by means of calls and plays. Certainly dummy's answer and declarer's question are extraneous remarks, just as "It's your round" is an extraneous remark; but in neither case are the remarks of the kind with which Law 73 is properly concerned.

A communication whose purpose is to influence declarer to play the hand in a particular fashion is a communication about the play; if it were held that dummy's utterance above were such a communication, then it would be a violation of Law 43A1c. If it were held merely to be an innocent observation on the frequency with which strong no trumps are opened in fourth position, then it would not be a violation of Law 43A1c. By the same token, if the play in the original case were to proceed to a point at which declarer played king and another diamond and started thinking on seeing two low cards from West, and if dummy were to make some such remark as "I'd have opened three diamonds, but we play that as needing two of the top three honours in our seven-card suit", the same considerations would apply. But when declarer asks dummy how many diamonds dummy has, and when dummy replies "seven", this cannot be regarded as a suggestion that declarer play the hand in a particular fashion - dummy does not know declarer's diamond holding, and is in no position to make any meaningful communication "about the play". However: Seriatim: yes; yes; yes; no; no; and no.

It is reasonable to say that, yes. But is is not reasonable to say the converse: that a card not in a position indicating that it was played to a specific trick is not "contained" in that trick. As I have explained before, the truth of "if x then y" does not imply the truth of "if y then x". Suppose that declarer calls for the three of hearts from dummy. And suppose that instead of turning the three of hearts face down in front of him when the trick is complete, dummy hurls the three of hearts out of the window by way of communicating to declarer that he ought to have played some other card (see some other thread for a discussion of the legality of such a manoeuvre). The three of hearts has been played to the trick, and the trick "contains" (if such word has any meaning at all in this context) the three of hearts. The fact that on being defenestrated, the card was seized in mid air by a passing albatross who mistook it for a flying fish before spitting it out in disgust, so that it is now at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, is neither here nor there. The physical pack of cards with which the players were playing has now become defective - but the trick to which the three of hearts was played has not.