player leads a card in middle of the bid, late call.

[blackshoe]

One thing that each and every player ought to be taught from day one: when an irregularity occurs, don't try to "fix" it, call the director.

 

Frankly, the widespread violation of this principle explains two things: why the word "must" in the 1997 laws (in "must call the director" in Law 9) was replaced by "should" in the 2007 laws, and why the change really annoys the Hell out of me, particularly since I was the one who pointed out, in 2001 or thereabouts, that "must" meant a violation is "serious indeed" and that implies that a PP should almost always be given for it.

[bluejak]

This is not true. If proper procedure had taken place then Responder would know that their partner would be banned before bidding 2♥. It seems unlikely that they would choose to make a transfer bid under such circumstances.

And who is at fault, pray? Who did not call the TD when required to by Law? Ok, not the poor guy who led, since he is merely in a world of his own, but the other three are clearly at fault.

 

The only reasonable ruling is to let them play the hand out and let the declaring side get the result for 2♥ and the defence the result for 2♠. Give them both a bad score and perhaps next time they will call the TD.

 

To be a lead there must first be a bid followed by 3 consecutive passes [which hasd not yet happened]

No. There is no such rule, and in fact if you care to read the Laws that is demonstrably false. There is a Law about what happens if there is a lead during the auction, ergo, it is possible to have a lead during the auction.

 

The law goes to some effort to define lead:

 

Lead — the first card played to a trick.

 

and then trick:

 

Trick — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead.

Exactly. So whenever a player plays a card as the first card to a trick it is a lead, whether legal or illegal, timely or otherwise, and whether the trick is then completed or otherwise.

[axman]

And who is at fault, pray? Who did not call the TD when required to by Law? Ok, not the poor guy who led, since he is merely in a world of his own, but the other three are clearly at fault.

 

The only reasonable ruling is to let them play the hand out and let the declaring side get the result for 2♥ and the defence the result for 2♠. Give them both a bad score and perhaps next time they will call the TD.

 

 

No. There is no such rule, and in fact if you care to read the Laws that is demonstrably false. There is a Law about what happens if there is a lead during the auction, ergo, it is possible to have a lead during the auction.

 

 

Exactly. So whenever a player plays a card as the first card to a trick it is a lead, whether legal or illegal, timely or otherwise, and whether the trick is then completed or otherwise.

 

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

 

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

[RMB1]

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

 

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

 

It must be possible for a card to be lead during the auction period (without subsequent cards being played) because Law 24 tells us how to rule when it happens.

[dburn]

I am not sure I follow this. Responder to 1NT, intending to bid hearts to show spades, pulled a heart from his hand instead of pulling a heart (specifically the 2♥ card) from the bidding box. He wasn't leading the card - he was trying to bid with it; quite what his state of mind must have been one can only conjecture, especially since he appears to have continued to try to bid with it after his error was pointed out, but the facts as presented by Fluffy seem clear enough.

 

Luckily the ♥9 was nearer his thumb than any of his three honours, so the exposed ♥9 is a single card below the rank of an honour and not prematurely led. Hence Law 24A applies and there is no (further) rectification as far as the auction is concerned. Opener can bid 2♠, responder can bid what he chooses after that, and all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

[barmar]

I was just going by what Fluffy wrote in the OP -- he said "responder leads ♥9", so I assumed it was established that it was a lead. He could have said "put the ♥9 on the table as if it were a bidding card".

[Zelandakh]

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

 

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

By this logic, if I make a Lead Out of Turn and the other 3 players do not play a card to the trick then the lead never happened. Particularly interesting here would be if Dummy made a LOOT and it then came to light that there was an incorrect explanation allowing the auction to continue. The simple answer is that your are simply misreading the definition of "lead" even though several other posters have tried to clarify this for you.

 

Here are a pair of question for your current position: what do you think is the point of Law 24B? what is it pertaining to that is possible under your interpretation?

[bluejak]

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

 

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

When a card is led, at that moment, there are never any other cards played to the trick. Does that mean no card is ever led?

 

I am not sure I follow this. Responder to 1NT, intending to bid hearts to show spades, pulled a heart from his hand instead of pulling a heart (specifically the 2♥ card) from the bidding box. He wasn't leading the card - he was trying to bid with it; quite what his state of mind must have been one can only conjecture, especially since he appears to have continued to try to bid with it after his error was pointed out, but the facts as presented by Fluffy seem clear enough.

As a later post says, we assumed the card was led because we were told the card was led, and recent arguments have solely been about whether ti is possible to lead a card [illegally, of course] during the auction.

 

It is quite likely true that the card was displayed and not led, but it is not totally unreasonable for us to try to answer the question as put.