suggestions

The conditions of 47E1 are such that if discovered prior to agreeing the score, the card is removed from the errant trick without further rectification (no provision for canceling play subsequent the induced card that was removed). Such errant trick would have the characteristics of being defective. Presumably, the removal of the card creates the defective trick infraction (no card contributed to the trick) which has its own remedy. Notably, justice requires that an induced play should endow the player the entitlement to insist without penalty it stand, or retract, so long as the partner has not subsequently acted.

I point out that L68B2 is an endorsement for improper deception. To demonstrate consider this occasion: N dummy, lead S SAKJ H- SQxx s- H- Hxxx Sxxx Upon the lead of a small spade, W returns his cards to the board and E objects immediately. It is ruled no concession and play resumes. Declarer spurns the finesse because the only valid reason for E to object is possession of the Q. This results in W collecting the SQ. It is arguable whether declarer would finesse this occasion without the concession, or only sometimes. I argue that it is clear after the rejection that a thinking declarer would never finesse given the outburst of E asserting possession of a trick. This situation is known as improper deception- yet it is endorsed by law…and ought not.

Change to "If the face of more than one card is visible, the offending player selects one of those cards to play; when he is defender..." Clarify that the player is not bound by the original intended play and may select a different card (including in consideration of the ramifications of having a major versus a minor penalty card).

Make it clear as a matter of law that every player's goal is and ought to be to place as highly as he can in the event in which he is entered, so long as he scrupulously follows the laws and regulations in force. Occasionally, this goal might be best achieved by failing to do his best on a deal or in a match. When such situations for gain through poor play occur, the fault lies with the game's administrators, and a player should not be criticized regardless of the action he takes.

refer to: Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A player also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim - for example, if declarer faces his cards after an opening lead out of turn Law 54, not this Law, will apply). "shows his cards" needs to have "to the non-claimimg side only". This is to cater for defender claims.

Add at the end of 41D: "The declaring side is responsible for ensuring that all cards belonging to dummy's hand remain clearly visible." This should hopefully assuage any misunderstandings that "everyone is responsible for the dummy" (possibly from a misunderstanding of Law 64B3).

In fourth seat, "win it" should mean the lowest winning card, but in second or third seat, it means dummy's highest card. That avoids arguments about what declarer might have known about the hand and removes all ambiguity. If declarer complains he meant something else, it's his own fault for not specifying.

Either of the following should be added to Law 46B. "A call for a trump from the dummy in a notrump contract is deemed to be a designation of the suit then appearing to dummy's right" or "A call for a trump from the dummy in a notrump contract is void."

Include in the definition of 'dummy' the time when a player ceases to be dummy - e.g. after the last trick is quitted; at the end of the round; when the auction period starts for the next deal?

Clarify the meaning of "cancel a board" -- is this the equivalent of "the board was never scheduled to be played by the pairs involved"?