[gordontd]

I do hope no one is taken in by this nonsense!

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2019-January-20, 10:30, said:

I do hope no one is taken in by this nonsense!

Well, I agree we don’t rule that way, but technically he’s right. If both conditions are not met, law 54 does not apply. What the lawmakers should have written is “when an opening lead is faced out of turn, then if the correct leader has led face down the face down lead is retracted. After that, or if a lead from the correct hand was not made, (the rest of law 54 applies).

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-20, 10:55, said:

Well, I agree we don’t rule that way, but technically he’s right. If both conditions are not met, law 54 does not apply. What the lawmakers should have written is “when an opening lead is faced out of turn, then if the correct leader has led face down the face down lead is retracted. After that, or if a lead from the correct hand was not made, (the rest of law 54 applies).

May I draw attention to my post #8 (and also #12)?

I still think that the simplest way to avoid this nonsense (other than just ignoring it) is to rephrase the preamble in Law 54 to read:
When an opening lead out of turn is faced* then:
.....
*if offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted.

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-January-20, 11:52, said:

May I draw attention to my post #8 (and also #12)?

I still think that the simplest way to avoid this nonsense (other than just ignoring it) is to rephrase the preamble in Law 54 to read:
When an opening lead out of turn is faced* then:
.....
*if offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted.

Directors are not at liberty to rephrase Laws, only WBFLC can do that. But that's how practically everyone has been interpreting Law 54 for decades.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-January-20, 11:52, said:

May I draw attention to my post #8 (and also #12)?

I still think that the simplest way to avoid this nonsense (other than just ignoring it) is to rephrase the preamble in Law 54 to read:
When an opening lead out of turn is faced* then:
.....
*if offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted.

barmar, on 2019-January-21, 00:50, said:

Directors are not at liberty to rephrase Laws, only WBFLC can do that. But that's how practically everyone has been interpreting Law 54 for decades.

I am willing to bet that this is what WBFLC has intended since before 1980 (and still intends).

[axman]

pran, on 2019-January-20, 11:52, said:

May I draw attention to my post #8 (and also #12)?

I still think that the simplest way to avoid this nonsense (other than just ignoring it) is to rephrase the preamble in Law 54 to read:
When an opening lead out of turn is faced* then:
.....
*if offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted.

Rephrasing the law has merits. Rephrasing that way manifests a different nonsense.

[blackshoe]

Five possibilities:

1. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face down.
2 Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face up.
3. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up.
4. Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO leads face down.
5. Putative declarer's LHO makes no lead, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up.

Which law applies, or which laws apply, to each of these situations?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-21, 12:34, said:

Five possibilities:

1. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face down.
2 Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO also leads face up.
3. Putative declarer's LHO leads face down, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up.
4. Putative declarer's LHO leads face up, while putative declarer's RHO leads face down.
5. Putative declarer's LHO makes no lead, while putative declarer's RHO leads face up.

Which law applies, or which laws apply, to each of these situations?

1: 16B and 41A - The attempted lead by RHO is simply restored to his hand without being faced
2: 58A and 41C
3: 54
4: 16B and 41C - The attempted lead by RHO is simply restored to his hand without being faced
5: 54 - That is what this thread is all about, isn't it?

[blackshoe]

I infer that you think that in cases 1 and 4 LHO has UI. What is the nature of this I? What does it imply?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-21, 20:05, said:

I infer that you think that in cases 1 and 4 LHO has UI. What is the nature of this I? What does it imply?

The fact that RHO attempted OLOOT is UI to LHO. What could be inferred from this UI is not obvious.

(Maybe for instance the auction as such could give some clue?)

[barmar]

pran, on 2019-January-22, 03:33, said:

The fact that RHO attempted OLOOT is UI to LHO. What could be inferred from this UI is not obvious.

You might suspect that they have a honding they're really eager to lead from, such as a singleton against a suit contract, or a nice honor sequence.

I think this is often the case when I attempt to OLOOT. Luckily I'm religious about making the OL face down, so we almost always catch it before it's faced.

I can't recall ever hearing of a TD being called to rule on the UI from a potential OLOOT that was not actually faced. Your turn, Lamford.