I’m in awe. I have absolutely no idea how you pulled it off. I would, however, pay to see the video 
Well played Madam !
My dear Francesca, I do not believe that querying ‘Walthalmstow’ constitutes ‘nitpicking’ or a ‘quibble’. Much though I admire Tapioca’s very stylish gameplay, the rules say that station names must be stated correctly. Frankly, I’m surprised that ‘Walthalmstow’ was allowed to stand. We’re either playing by the rules or we’re not, and if we’re not then what’s the point? We might just as well make it up as we go along.
Hi there, Alex B. Thanks for your solution to the problem, but I’m not sure you read it correctly. If you go back, you’ll see it concerns what B should have played instead of ‘Mile End’, not what A was or was not entitled to do. The ‘Nimoy’s Excuse-Me’ answer is brilliant, but sadly this particular problem was set in 1990, two years before the NE-M was ratified as canonical.
Here’s the correct solution:
The solution calls for some elegant retro-analysis. Then key is to note that A’s later play of ‘Goldhawk Road’ occurs after ‘Mile End’, which is, as every fan of MC trivia knows, the only station one stop removed from ‘a Green, a Road and a Church’. This being so, we know that B has not previously offered contrary motion via an outer zone. Given this fact, ask yourself how A could be declining Stirrups after B’s ‘Neasden’ move without invalidating ‘Goldhawk Road’? There are only three possibilities:
(1) B has previously offered Stirrups involving a ‘Road’
(2) B has previously declared Bassoons involving a ‘Road’
(3) There have been more than 32 consecutive moves without a ‘Road’
We can rule out (1) because otherwise B’s move of ‘Neasden’ would have been illegal unless he also declared Sherrin’s Behind, which he did not.
We can rule out (2) because otherwise ‘Borough’ would have involved rotary motion on the ‘Bank’ branch of the Northern Line, which is a nonsense.
Hence it must be (3)! Once you realise this, it’s trivial to point out that the Lateral Defence is applicable, hence B could have declared Neasden wild and simply played Debden! A is left with two options, ‘Chalfont & Latimer’ or ‘Uxbridge’ (today there would have been a third option, ‘Elverson Road’, but this was back in 1990). Both of these fail to ‘Croxley’ and ‘Ickenham’ respectively, leading to ‘Mornington Crescent’ whatever A plays next.
Good game everybody - and a worthy winner. i can see why you are one of the top ten players in Britain Francesca
I hope my previous post won’t be misinterpreted as ‘sour grapes’. I stand by the points I made about ‘quibbles’ and rules, but nonetheless would like to join Tapioca and Garius in congratulating Fran on her victory. There is never any shame in losing to worthy opposition, and they don’t come any worthier than the lovely Francesca.