North played in 6
The players moved on to Board 7 and completed it. At this point, the nice lady from the next table came over with the Club 9 (henceforth known as the Curse of Buxton) "Does anyone want this?" she asked.
Comparison with the curtain card revealed that North's hand on board 6 had in fact been
North now came to search for the TD - "I bet you have never seen anything like this before" he said. Of course we have seen things like this - but how do you rule?
North was in breach of L7B1 since he did not have 13 cards. The WBF's intended and stated policy is to make the recipient of a hand responsible for ensuring it has 13 cards, so North is clearly responsible. Do we fine him? No, we have no evidence to show that he is a habitual offender.
L14 refers to a hand with a deficient card: unfortunately it does not apply after the end of the play. The Lawmakers appear not to have intended this, since the 1997 Laws will change this so that L14 will apply, but that Law book does not apply yet. Accordingly we cannot use it.
What about the revoke? Did he revoke?
It was possible for him to follow suit: he could have counted his cards at that moment, discovered he was one short, searched, found the card and played it. So it was possible: so he was required to: a failure to follow suit as required under this Law is a revoke per L61A.
Of course, there are no automatic penalty tricks for a revoke when attention was first drawn after the start of the next deal [L64B4] merely the catchall L64C to restore equity:
Well? What this means is that if a player who revoked would have made ten tricks without the revoke, then L64C gives his opponents at least three tricks, whether there are any penalty tricks to be transferred or not.
If he had not revoked then presumably he would have finessed in diamonds twice [no other play making sense] to make eleven tricks. He did make eleven tricks, so L64C does not affect the outcome.
We have a claim and acquiescence. Reading L69A shows there was acquiescence, since each side has made a call on a subsequent board, but the opponents may make an attempt to withdraw acquiescence under L69B, since it is within the Correction Period.
For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational.
Their side have not acquiesced in the loss of a trick their side has actually won, so have they acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards?
At the moment of the claim, the cards were:
... even though no-one realised it! One possible normal play with the West hand is to discard the club honours since they seem irrelevant, so the defence do not get an extra trick under L69B. Note that the balance of the doubt has changed for withdrawn acquiescence: if there is a normal play that does not give the non-claimers a trick then they do not get that trick.
How will this be different under the new Law book?
The revoke is still out of time for penalty tricks. In fact the effect is - no change whatever! It just saves searching through the exact wording of L44C to make sure that it was a revoke.