[sanst]

---

The bidding over, North turns to East and says 'Your lead'. East puts ♠2 open on the table and South starts to expose his hand, but at card #8 says 'This ain't right, I'm the declarer and West should lead'. The director is called. What should be his decission?

[pran]

 sanst, on 2015-September-12, 07:53, said:

---

The bidding over, North turns to East and says 'Your lead'. East puts ♠2 open on the table and South starts to expose his hand, but at card #8 says 'This ain't right, I'm the declarer and West should lead'. The director is called. What should be his decission?

OLOOT accepted so complete the play.

Once play is completed he should use Law 23 and rule that North when committing the irregularity of telling East to lead "could have known" that this irregularity would be advantageous for North/South in protecting them from a damaging spade lead by West.

Therefore the final result should be adjusted to 3NT-3.

[blackshoe]

"I'm the declarer…"

Not anymore. Law 54A.

Was the opening lead made face down or face up?

[sanst]

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 08:36, said:

"I'm the declarer…"

Not anymore. Law 54A.

Was the opening lead made face down or face up?

Face up.

[campboy]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 08:21, said:

OLOOT accepted so complete the play.

Nope.

Law 47E said:

A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.

[blackshoe]

If we apply 47E I guess we tell East to pick up his card, West that knowledge that his partner has that card is authorized to him (Law 16D) and South that knowledge of East's card is unauthorized to him. Then we tell South to pick up his cards, and tell EW that knowledge of South's cards is authorized to them (Law 16D again). Then we tell 'em to get on with the play, West leading face down (if you don't remind him at this point, he'll probably lead face up. That may or may not be a problem).

I might still be inclined to give a PP to East, if only a warning, about his leading face up.

How do we know that 47E supersedes 54A?

[pran]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 08:21, said:

OLOOT accepted so complete the play.

 campboy, on 2015-September-12, 13:02, said:

Nope.

Indeed Yes!

Law 54A said:

After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer.

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 14:21, said:

If we apply 47E I guess we tell East to pick up his card, West that knowledge that his partner has that card is authorized to him (Law 16D) and South that knowledge of East's card is unauthorized to him. Then we tell South to pick up his cards, and tell EW that knowledge of South's cards is authorized to them (Law 16D again). Then we tell 'em to get on with the play, West leading face down (if you don't remind him at this point, he'll probably lead face up. That may or may not be a problem).

I might still be inclined to give a PP to East, if only a warning, about his leading face up.

How do we know that 47E supersedes 54A?

It doesn't. Law 54A applies specifically to faced opening leads and is therefore more specific than Law 47E.

(Also don't overlook that Law 47E says "may" while Law 54A is unconditional once declarer has exposed at least one card.)

I would not bother about any PP to East in this case (and definitely not anything more that a mild warning). North's irregularity is so much more grave that I instead might consider a PP on him in addition to the adjusted score.

I stand by my ruling 3NT-3.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 14:49, said:

I stand by my ruling 3NT-3.

Where's the selfie?

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 14:21, said:

How do we know that 47E supersedes 54A?

Because 47E says there is no further rectification. In the case of an OLOOT, Law 54 is the rectification in question that there is no of.

If 47E didn't supersede the laws governing rectification of leads/plays out of turn, it would be completely pointless.

[blackshoe]

I like Sven's reasoning better. Sorry, Campboy.

[mgoetze]

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-12, 14:21, said:

I might still be inclined to give a PP to East, if only a warning, about his leading face up.

I think if a TD gave a PP everytime someone led face up he could hand out more PPs in a single tournament than were issued in every tournament I've ever attended combined.

[blackshoe]

Cool! Maybe he'll end up in the Guinness Book of Records!

[pran]

 campboy, on 2015-September-12, 17:02, said:

Because 47E says there is no further rectification. In the case of an OLOOT, Law 54 is the rectification in question that there is no of.

If 47E didn't supersede the laws governing rectification of leads/plays out of turn, it would be completely pointless.

Don't confuse leads out of turn with opening leads out of turn.
Law 47 applies to the former (general case), Law 54 to the latter (special case).

[campboy]

 pran, on 2015-September-12, 21:47, said:

Don't confuse leads out of turn with opening leads out of turn.
Law 47 applies to the former (general case), Law 54 to the latter (special case).

Nonsense. Law 47 is not about leads out of turn at all; it is about situations where a card may be withdrawn.

One of these is when a player has been incorrectly informed that it is his turn. Law 54A is not more specific than 47E, because 54A considers the general (and common) case of an OLOOT rather than the special (and rare) case where it is because the player has been incorrectly informed.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2015-September-13, 01:19, said:

Nonsense. Law 47 is not about leads out of turn at all; it is about situations where a card may be withdrawn.

One of these is when a player has been incorrectly informed that it is his turn. Law 54A is not more specific than 47E, because 54A considers the general (and common) case of an OLOOT rather than the special (and rare) case where it is because the player has been incorrectly informed.

May I remind you that

Law 47E said:

1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.

2. a. A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card.

b. When it is too late to correct a play under (a) the Director may award an adjusted score.

and

Law 54A said:

After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer.

Law 47E concerns the general case of a lead out of turn while Law 54A only applies when the lead out of turn is also an opening lead. Already that alone makes Law 54A more specific than Law 47E.

But in addition Law 47E2 explicitly forbids any retraction of an OLOOT after dummy has faced any card. And according to Law 54A declarer becomes dummy if (and when) he exposes any of his cards in an act of spreading his hand as dummy.

[sanst]

Sorry about confusing te issue, but E put his card face down on the table and then turned it face up, as is normal when your partner doesn't have a question.
I don't think that E is an offender for exposing his lead. Law 47E seems to say so.
Has anybody considered the last sentence of Law 47E1: "A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances."

[pran]

 sanst, on 2015-September-13, 09:11, said:

Sorry about confusing te issue, but E put his card face down on the table and then turned it face up, as is normal when your partner doesn't have a question.
I don't think that E is an offender for exposing his lead. Law 47E seems to say so.
Has anybody considered the last sentence of Law 47E1: "A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances."

The purpose of this sentence is to make it absolutely clear that LHO may not "accept" the lead out of turn when the offender prefers to retract his lead out of turn in these circumstances.

However in the current situation we have an opening lead out of turn and a (presumed) declarer who subsequently began facing his hand. That is a case for Law 54A, not 47E.

[sanst]

 pran, on 2015-September-13, 10:42, said:

The purpose of this sentence is to make it absolutely clear that LHO may not "accept" the lead out of turn when the offender prefers to retract his lead out of turn in these circumstances.

However in the current situation we have an opening lead out of turn and a (presumed) declarer who subsequently began facing his hand. That is a case for Law 54A, not 47E.

Law 47E1: A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.
The conditions in this law where met: E led because he was mistakenly informed by N. So there is no 'simple' LOOT. Putting down his hand by S is arguably accepting, which this law forbids. E and S should pick up their cards, W leads and both the lead of E and what he has seen of the hand of the dummy is AI for him and UI for NS.

[blackshoe]

This is bringing back to my mind Edgar Kaplan's "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it." I thought we'd decided he was wrong about that.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-13, 13:39, said:

This is bringing back to my mind Edgar Kaplan's "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it." I thought we'd decided he was wrong about that.

He was indeed wrong in that respect despite his other qualities.
But I am quite confident that Kaplan would never have dreamt of using Law 47E here, it almost destroys the board beyond being playable instead of having the player play out the board in a next to normal way.

However, the Director must be aware of Law 23 on the action taken by North and award an adjusted score after play is complete!