Graham_Suf

I feel this goes against the spirit of L9a4 which was surely not intended to protect a player from disclosing an ongoing infraction. As declarer was aware that Dummy's cards were not in order, is he in breach of 72.3? Info: Standard of players, North - county; West - good club player; East - former county.

Law 23 was not considered at the time but interestingly, declared was well aware of the error in dummy's trump layout as he told the TD that the 8 was out of alignment and should have been noticed by North. Thank you for your thoughts and opinions.

West played in 3♠ doubled by North who held ♠QJ73. Declarer leads a small club, a suit in which both North and Dummy are void. Dummy's trumps are three small headed by the 6. North ruffs with the ♠7 and declarer calls for the ♠8!. Dummy's trumps were 6 8 2 and North, seeing the top card to be the six, believed he was ruffing above dummy's highest trump. TD ruled that notwithstanding rule 41D, it is incumbent on the defenders to study dummy and no substitution of a card by North was allowed. How should the appeal be handled?