bixby

I would say no. Your are obligated to avoid choosing from among logical alternatives based on your partner's hesitation (Law 16), and to avoid taking any advantage of unauthorized information (Law 73). But neither seems to be involved here -- ducking was apparently not a logical alternative and playing the Ace was not suggested to you by unauthorized information. If you really think that your partner violated the proprieties by attempting to mislead declarer by hesitating (Law 73D2), then the proper remedy would be to call the Director after play had concluded and seek a ruling.

Because Law 27D does not apply (as Blackshoe pointed out), it seems that redress would have to come from Law 23. The predicate for such redress includes that the offender "could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side." That seems highly unlikely in this case, so I wouldn't adjust even if the insufficient bid seemed to be the primary cause of the bad result -- which, as others have pointed out, it doesn't.

If you had played it out while seeing all the cards you would have taken the risk-free finesse and made five. But if you had actually played it out from the position in which you made your claim, you might, and indeed likely would, have won the ♦10, crossed to dummy in diamonds, and discarded the ♠5 on the fourth diamond, as you said in your claim statement. At that point you are in the wrong hand to finesse and there is no way back. So I think you have to lose a spade trick, and this doesn't even seem like a case in which the claim laws are at all harsh. The claim laws are getting us to the result that would likely have occurred in actual play. If you had seen all your cards, and made the claim statement you made, while intending in your own mind that you would get rid of one spade loser on the diamonds and "of course" would have finessed to have a chance to get rid of the other, there would be something to argue about. In that case, the claims laws might still force you to lose a spade trick, even though you "obviously" would have made an overtrick if you had played the hand out. That is at least a harder case. But the actual case seems easy.

Yes, I missed that detail. I agree that it would be correct to inquire into how much time elapsed between the final pass and East's face-up lead. If there was not enough time for North to correct the misinformation, I would not give East the opportunity to change his lead.

You say any jurisdiction, but my answer is based on ACBL rules. In the ACBL, the following principles apply (see the ACBL alert procedures): * When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. * The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. * Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically. So notwithstanding the form of East's question, it was South's duty to give correct information. South indicated that North's bid was weak whereas the correct answer appears to be that the bid is undiscussed. (Of course I would find out what the real agreement is. But let's assume North is correct and the bid is undiscussed.) So South gave misinformation. It was North's duty to inform E/W of the misinformation at the first legal opportunity, which was at the conclusion of the auction, before the opening lead (Law 20F5b). North incorrectly waited until after the opening lead. It is too late to back up to the auction period and give West a chance to retract his final pass, because the play period has begun irrevocably (Law 41C). But I would give East a chance to change his opening lead (Law 47E2). The deal should then be played out. If E/W were damaged in the auction from the incorrect explanation, I would award an adjusted score. Otherwise the table score should stand, as the misinformation was corrected in time for normal play.

Why isn't this a suitable case for application of Law 11A? In the case stated in the OP, after an inadmissible bid was made, the non-offending side continued in the bidding and play without summoning the Director. Shouldn't the Director at least consider the possibility that the non-offending side has forfeited its right to rectification of the irregularity? The second sentence of Law 11A may not apply (the non-offending side may not have gained), but that is just an "example" of when the Director may apply this law.

Sorry, but "You're still wrong" is not an argument. You haven't addressed the text of the relevant law, which is very clear. If you have an argument as to why the law doesn't mean what it says, I would be interested to hear it, but "you're still wrong" is not an argument. Suppose the lead is a club, there is a club in dummy, and declarer calls for a heart. Assuming dummy knows that he has a club, do you think dummy is even *permitted* to play the heart? I say that dummy cannot play the heart. To do so would violate dummy's obligation to follow suit, which takes precedence over all other requirements of the laws.

Yes, it does. Dummy's obligation to follow suit "takes precedence over *all other requirements* of these Laws." Therefore, it takes precedence over the requirement that declarer calls for cards from dummy.

I would say the correct response is even stronger. Dummy is not only allowed to point out the irregularity, dummy *must* do so and may not permit declarer to revoke from dummy. This is based strictly on the Laws and does not require any Committee interpretation in support. The reason is that Law 44C provides, "In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. *This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.*" Dummy is a "player" under the Laws. See, e.g., Law 9B, which refers to "Any player, including dummy." Therefore, dummy is subject to the obligation under Law 44C to follow suit if possible, and this obligation takes precedence over *all other* requirements of the Laws. Dummy's duty to follow suit therefore trumps (ha ha) dummy's obligation to refrain from participating in the play, to avoid pointing out irregularities once they have already occurred, etc. So while dummy should remain silent after most irregularities (e.g., if declarer calls for a card from dummy when the lead is in declarer's hand, dummy should just play the card without comment), if declarer tells dummy to revoke, dummy must object.