[mink]

In the "Simple Rulings" section, the following case was discussed:

Quote

East was playing 4♥. North made a lead out of turn (♣10), but before the East exercised her rights, South played the ♣K.

I change this slightly: Imagine South played the ♦K. East holds AQ in ♦ and would like to accept this as the first lead.

This seems not possible under the current law: North was the one who faced the first card, so this is the lead and the card by South is a subsequent play, no matter if it was intended as a lead or not, and no matter that it was originally South's turn to make the first lead - as they are not on on different sides, law 53C does not apply. I think here the laws are not designed as they should be, as anywhere else it is possible to accept a bid or a lead out of turn, and here it is not possible to even accept a lead that was in turn if North did not make an error.

Therefore I suggest that some law, maybe law 53, should be extended by the following text:

A card played out of turn may be regarded as a lead if it is the second card played to the trick and the player acted under the impression that he was leading, as he did not notice the first card played. The director decides if lead or subsequent play is more plausible. If it is established that there are 2 leads, the non-offending side determines which card is regarded as the real lead. The other card becomes a major penalty card if it's owner is defending and member of offending side, and may be withdrawn without rectification otherwise.

If both cards were payed out of turn by different sides, and law 53C does not apply, all cards are withdrawn. Law 16D applies but there is no further rectification

This text restricts the application of law 57A to those cases it was designed for, as the terms "lead" and "play out of turn" now mean that the defender intended to lead to the next trick (prematurely) or intended a subsequent play to the current trick (out of turn).

This text should be not in contradiction with Law 53A and C. Law 53B should still apply, too, except that it does not apply if the defender's play is regarded as a lead.

Karl

[RMB1]

But this is easy under the current laws: do not accept the lead out of turn, the lead reverts to South, make no lead restriction on South (arising from North's penalty card, and South must lead the ♦K penalty card.

[pran]

mink, on Sep 12 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

In the "Simple Rulings" section, the following case was discussed:

Quote

East was playing 4♥. North made a lead out of turn (♣10), but before the East exercised her rights, South played the ♣K.

I change this slightly: Imagine South played the ♦K. East holds AQ in ♦ and would like to accept this as the first lead.

This seems not possible under the current law: North was the one who faced the first card, so this is the lead and the card by South is a subsequent play, no matter if it was intended as a lead or not, and no matter that it was originally South's turn to make the first lead - as they are not on on different sides, law 53C does not apply. I think here the laws are not designed as they should be, as anywhere else it is possible to accept a bid or a lead out of turn, and here it is not possible to even accept a lead that was in turn if North did not make an error.

Therefore I suggest that some law, maybe law 53, should be extended by the following text:

A card played out of turn may be regarded as a lead if it is the second card played to the trick and the player acted under the impression that he was leading, as he did not notice the first card played. The director decides if lead or subsequent play is more plausible. If it is established that there are 2 leads, the non-offending side determines which card is regarded as the real lead. The other card becomes a major penalty card if it's owner is defending and member of offending side, and may be withdrawn without rectification otherwise.

If both cards were payed out of turn by different sides, and law 53C does not apply, all cards are withdrawn. Law 16D applies but there is no further rectification

This text restricts the application of law 57A to those cases it was designed for, as the terms "lead" and "play out of turn" now mean that the defender intended to lead to the next trick (prematurely) or intended a subsequent play to the current trick (out of turn).

This text should be not in contradiction with Law 53A and C. Law 53B should still apply, too, except that it does not apply if the defender's play is regarded as a lead.

Karl

Honestly I cannot see the point.

What prevents East from not accepting the lead out of turn by North?

In that case the correct lead shall be made by South who has already exposed the ♦K, so he must lead this card (unless declarer very unwisely requests a lead in clubs). Whether South's exposure was a lead or a subsequent play is completely irrelevant so long as it was not caused by misinformation from East or West.

After South has led his exposed card North still has his major penalty card from his lead out of turn, and it is only for declarer to make the most out of this as well.

added: I see that Robin was quicker than me with his comment.