shyams

Here's my attempt to plan the defense.

Fair enough. And ignoring the simple point that he can test for it, it is a reasonable view, and in a different case I might agree with declarer's reasoning. But since there is no infraction except for the unestablished revoke which has now been corrected there is no reason to adjust. Any "damage" is self-inflicted. Suppose the suits had been ♦Qxxx opposite ♦AK9x. Declarer starts off by ♦x to ♦Q. Then (as described in the OP) West revoked, rectified immediately etc. At the next trick, dummy's ♦x is led and (when East plays low), declarer plays the ♦9 (playing East for ♦JTxx) Now what? Does the declarer get any relief if West started with ♦Jx?

Most amazing tennis match. I don't recall another match where the players hit so many "winners" only for the other person to somehow manage to return it. The courts at the US Open seemed to help prolong the rallies (and I mean in a good way) Views?

To be honest, I would transfer to 2♥ and hope to play there However, looking at the hand with the Jacks, 10 9 etc and the weakness of the proposed trump suit, I think the best course of action is pass.

I think this is a very good suggestion. However, the EBU bidding box regulation reads that a call is "considered to have been made when it has been removed from the bidding box". To address the issue of sticky bidding cards and other dexterity issues, Law 25A can be limited to an erroneous pull out of the box provided either this clause -- the call is not yet "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table" or this clause -- in is not yet "possible for his partner to see the face of the call" or the first clause when playing with screens and the second without screens.

I don't understand this section. Cashing the ♦A will make no difference if it is followed up with playing the "13th" club -- which coincidentally turns out to be a winner -- and declarer discarding his last remaining diamond on it.

With a previous partner, I would not open 1NT with the East hand simply because it was 2-2 in majors. If I had a (32)26 with a 15 count, I would have opened 1NT and partner would find a gadget to force game in majors. Due to this gadget, my partner would get most annoyed if I had no 3-card major. My bidding would probably have gone: 1♣ - 1♥; 2♣ - 2♥ all pass. Nowadays, playing with irregular partners, I would open East hand 1NT and probably reach a 3NT contract.

This one seems easier as a problem than to actually find the correct plays at the table. 1. We duck the ♣Q and win the second round. (Partner probably started with ♣J8xx?) 2. Next we play ♦K. Partner will give count (doubleton I hope). 3. If declarer ducks this trick, I have to play ♦Q next. This stops declarer from entering dummy. 4. This sets up the situation where I will score my ♥K + ♦K + partner gets a ♦ ruff and we eventually score our ♠ winner. It does not help declarer to win the first diamond. He still has no entries to dummy and we will win, cash ♦Q and give partner a ♦ ruff. We need partner to be something like 4-3-2-4 which seems reasonable for the bidding and play so far.

As per the OP, declarer made a claim after playing 3 tricks. With 10 cards yet to play, this player was competent enough to make a conditional claim along the lines of "I try A. If it does not happen, I try B. If both fail, I'm out of luck". In my opinion, for such a player, the 5% chance of not noticing the fall of the ♣J + 5% chance of not being aware of the ♣T in dummy are excessive.

I would prefer that the usual interpretation be "break kindly". This would cover 5-1 or 6-0 breaks (with long suit onside) and any 4-2 / 5-1 breaks where the Jack falls early. I think RMB1 makes a valid point. IMO this issue results in many debates on this forum -- what appears normal to some posters is still deemed careless or inferior by others.

I would cash ♦A and look at partner's signal. There may be hands where partner preempted with 4-6 or 5-6 in minors with the ♦K. If we play ♥A then low, declarer makes his contract when he started with 6-3-3-1 (or 7-3-2-1) missing the ♦K. If partner has a diamond winner, the ♥ ruff is an illusion. That's why I'd play ♦A and hope for a useful signal.

I would give a ruff and discard in ♥ at this time. I cannot think of hands where leading a club can gain compared to giving a ruff & discard. One can construct a hand for South like ♠QJ93 ♥AJ ♦A953 ♣xxx where a ruff & discard is fatal. But then partner's signals so far make no sense. That's why I like the ruff & discard option

At the table, I would rise with the trump Ace, play ♣A and ♣x hoping partner would ruff. I think declarer would not play a trump so early missing both ♠A and ♠K because if trumps split badly, the defenders could draw all of dummy's trumps and leave declarer with a slow loser in ♦

I agree with this. I realise the actual claim statement could be clearer as required by Law 68C. However, I think a strong advanced or expert could be construed to have meant (2) -- it is far too obvious. Views?

Declarer would then have a 5-1-4-3 holding and our diamond tricks will score eventually.

Dummy has 4 heart cards. discarding two on the J and 10 does not avoid the heart loser

Trick 2: ♦K. Partner gives count (is this a count situation?) If partner shows odd number of ♦s, I switch to ♥9. If partner gives an even count, I can cash ♦A before trying to give partner a ♣ ruff.

Happy birthday, helene

Happy Birthday, hrothgar. Have a great time.

I believe there is also a direction where subsequent "plays" are taken into account when deciding defective claims (i.e assessment of how likely hearts would be played can be affected by actual "play" after a claim). I'm not sure about this though.

I meant 16A1 -- South's contention is that the missing stop card caused a problem. My contention is that 16A1 does not allow South to derive any information from the presence or absence of a stop card (edit: used/not used by East). This is the 16A1 that begins approx as "a player may use information if" and does not talk about partner or opponent.

I agree that East committed an infraction. However, would it be worth discussing if the presence or absence of a stop card is authorised information per Law 16A1? South's contention can be valid only if we deem the use of (and, as an extension, the absence of use of) a stop card to be authorised information. Otherwise he based his 3♣ bid on extraneous information (guesses, assumptions or whatever else) and East cannot be blamed for getting a good board as a consequence of South's error. The director may decide to give a PP to East but that's independent of the table result

The phrase "sparrow's fart" leads to a natural conclusion. Wouldn't letting one rip at the table be a better example of 74A2 violation not covered by 74A1? If it is ill-timed (by an opponent when one is thinking hard about a difficult problem), one may even be able to seek redressal for a subsequent misplay.

Read and re-read a sci-fi book: BlindSight by Peter Watts. The book is available free to download at http://www.rifters.com/real/blindsight.htm although I realised that only after buying and reading the printed version.

1. There was also a time when one of my partners (who claimed he never used the Stop card) stared at his hand for 30+ seconds as dealer and eventually put down a 4♠ bid without the stop card. The next person overcalled 2♣. Partner was obviously to blame. 2. Once in the middle of an auction (I recall I had passed twice), I raised partner to 6♦ as a sacrifice. But instead of pulling out 27 cards out of the box, I selectively pulled out the 6♦ card and placed it on the table. The next person bid 6♣ and claimed he was confused by the absence of many cards and thought I had bid 5♦. I was obviously to blame.