OLOOT and a hasty dummy

[sanst]

N is declarer in a spade contract. While E is still considering his lead, W puts ♣J open on the table. South, the dummy starts putting his cards on the table and the declarer can't stop him before everyone has seen ♣A. The TD comes and applies Law 54C: declarer has to accept the lead and S puts the rest of the dummy on the table. Is this the right decission or is this a Law 56 case, the point being that Law 54 starts with "When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down", but the offender's partner hadn't led face down or otherwise. If Law 54 doesn't apply, this is treated in Law 56

LAW 56 - DEFENDER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN

When a lead out of turn is faced, declarer may:

A. Accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, or

B. Require the defender to retract his faced lead out of turn. The withdrawn card becomes a

major penalty card and Law 50D applies.

[pescetom]

Law 54 looks like yet another clumsily worded law, but it is entitled "faced opening lead out of turn" and I see no reason to assume that law 56 applies here. Presumably the sense of the premise is just that any lead made faced down by partner must be retracted.

[blackshoe]

Hard to say what the lawmakers actually intended, but as I've seen it ruled, Pescetom has it right.

[barmar]

Law 54 looks like yet another clumsily worded law, but it is entitled "faced opening lead out of turn" and I see no reason to assume that law 56 applies here. Presumably the sense of the premise is just that any lead made faced down by partner must be retracted.

I think the intent is to distinguish where both defenders faced their opening leads simultaneously, versus just the wrong defender. If they both face them, or both lead face down, Law 58A applies. The legal lead is the actual lead, and the other lead is considered subsequent to it. Law 58 doesn't go into detail, but presumably if it's not a legal play it's treated as an unestablished revoke and becomes a penalty card.

[pran]

Law 54 looks like yet another clumsily worded law, but it is entitled "faced opening lead out of turn" and I see no reason to assume that law 56 applies here. Presumably the sense of the premise is just that any lead made faced down by partner must be retracted.

What is the problem?

Declarer Must Accept Lead

If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer.

 

(The reference to Law 56 is a red herring here)

[pescetom]

What is the problem?

 

The problem is that Law 54 is written as follows:

LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN

When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Also:

A. Declarer Spreads His Hand

....

B. Declarer Accepts Lead

....

C. Declarer Must Accept Lead

If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer.

 

As the OP suggests, the initial phrase could be construed to suggest that this law only applies when an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, not in other situations where an an opening lead out of turn is faced. The use of "Also:" compounds this clumsiness by suggesting that A, B and C are consequences of the combination of facts that an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, just like the requirement that the face down lead be retracted.

 

Had the law been written as follows there would be no such problem:

 

When an opening lead out of turn is faced by a defender then:

A. Previous Face Down Lead to be Retracted

If offender’s partner has already made his lead face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted.

 

B. Declarer Spreads His Hand

....

C. Declarer Accepts Lead

....

D. Declarer Must Accept Lead

...

[axman]

What is the problem?

 

 

(The reference to Law 56 is a red herring here)

As I recollect, L54 is prefaced (in order to have effect) that a necessary precondition is that both defenders OL, where only the OOT leader was faced- for the remaining provisions to have effect. IOW as both defenders did not 'lead', when 54 is 'applied' it has no effect (it provides no remedy.

 

And what sanst speaks of is that L56 does provide a remedy.

 

Now, if the WBF wanted some different process, it is odd that they have waited so long to not change the words to obtain that different process.

[pran]

As I recollect, L54 is prefaced (in order to have effect) that a necessary precondition is that both defenders OL, where only the OOT leader was faced- for the remaining provisions to have effect. IOW as both defenders did not 'lead', when 54 is 'applied' it has no effect (it provides no remedy.

 

And what sanst speaks of is that L56 does provide a remedy.

 

Now, if the WBF wanted some different process, it is odd that they have waited so long to not change the words to obtain that different process.

Law 54 was changed in 1997 (as far as I can see) to the present version. The change at that time was just the addition of:

When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Also:

at the beginning of Law 54.

 

In his commentaries to the 1987 laws (issued in 1992) Grattan Endicott quotes a ruling in the EBL Committee on July 9th 1989 stating that an opening lead made face-down is not yet a played card. The card is not played until it is faced. and writes that this ruling covers the situation of a faced opening lead out of turn made simultaneously with a face down lead from the correct hand. (The effect is simply that the face-down lead has not been made and the card is just restored to the hand where it is belongs.)

 

I find it fair to assume that the present wording of Law 54 is to confirm that all parts of this law apply whenever there is a faced opening lead out of turn whether or not a correct opening lead has simultaneously been attempted face down. (Such attempts are simply considered void.)

 

I cannot help wondering if changing the preamble to read:

"When an opening lead out of turn is faced (if offender’s partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted) then:"

would make things clearer, but honestly I have never in my career as TD experienced the slightest doubt about how Law 54 is to be understood.

[pescetom]

Law 54 was changed in 1997 (as far as I can see) to the present version. The change at that time was just the addition of:

When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Also:

at the beginning of Law 54.

Thanks. So it looks like that clumsy addition is precisely what engendered the quandary raised by the OP. Before that, Law 54 clearly covered the situation described in OP. Presumably all they really intended by the change is contained in my proposed new clause:

A. Previous Face Down Lead to be Retracted

If offender’s partner has already made his lead face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted.

[pescetom]

As I recollect, L54 is prefaced (in order to have effect) that a necessary precondition is that both defenders OL, where only the OOT leader was faced- for the remaining provisions to have effect. IOW as both defenders did not 'lead', when 54 is 'applied' it has no effect (it provides no remedy.

 

And what sanst speaks of is that L56 does provide a remedy.

 

Now, if the WBF wanted some different process, it is odd that they have waited so long to not change the words to obtain that different process.

 

If WBF wanted Law 56 to apply here instead of Law 54 then it is odd that they did not make it clear in the Laws, in particular by using the phrase "Opening Lead" anywhere in Law 56 (contrast with Law 54 where is used eight times) or by adding any of the usual cross-referencing and/or precisations of scope between two related Laws, such as "(but when offender’s partner has not already lead face down, Law 56 applies instead)".

[sanst]

It’s 54C. I have it on good authority that this confusing, if not faulty, wording will be brought to the attention of the WBFLC by someone with some clout with that august institution.

[pran]

It’s 54C. I have it on good authority that this confusing, if not faulty, wording will be brought to the attention of the WBFLC by someone with some clout with that august institution.

I see nothing wrong or confusing in Law 54C?

 

Maybe the simplest rectification to the laws might be to add a note to Law 41A: "An opening lead made face down is not considered played so long as it remains face down".

 

(Indirectly this is already clear from Law 41C: The play period begins when the opening lead is faced - not earlier!)

[axman]

If WBF wanted Law 56 to apply here instead of Law 54 then it is odd that they did not make it clear in the Laws, in particular by using the phrase "Opening Lead" anywhere in Law 56 (contrast with Law 54 where is used eight times) or by adding any of the usual cross-referencing and/or precisations of scope between two related Laws, such as "(but when offender’s partner has not already lead face down, Law 56 applies instead)".

 

It is not a matter of L56 instead; it is a matter of both.

 

It is not fair to assume that the present wording of Law 54 is to confirm that all parts of this law apply whenever there is a faced opening lead out of turn whether or not a correct opening lead has simultaneously been attempted face down- as the words do not support that kind of assuming.

 

The WBF has been satisfied for decades with the language of L54; the effect of which being that it does not supply remedies to an OLOOT which is not accompanied by a face down lead by offender's partner. Perhaps it needs to be pointed out that an OLOOT is a POOT and that L56 deals with LOOT and L53 deals with POOT. Another way to say it is that an OLOOT that is not remedied by L54 would fall under L56 (not very well… being an understatement).

[pescetom]

The WBF has been satisfied for decades with the language of L54; the effect of which being that it does not supply remedies to an OLOOT which is not accompanied by a face down lead by offender's partner. Perhaps it needs to be pointed out that an OLOOT is a POOT and that L56 deals with LOOT and L53 deals with POOT. Another way to say it is that an OLOOT that is not remedied by L54 would fall under L56 (not very well… being an understatement).

I severely doubt you are right and have already expressed why.

 

Perhaps you missed the explanation of what happened in 1997 and this:

It’s 54C. I have it on good authority that this confusing, if not faulty, wording will be brought to the attention of the WBFLC by someone with some clout with that august institution.

[blackshoe]

I'm wondering why it needs someone with clout.

[pran]

It is not a matter of L56 instead; it is a matter of both.

 

It is not fair to assume that the present wording of Law 54 is to confirm that all parts of this law apply whenever there is a faced opening lead out of turn whether or not a correct opening lead has simultaneously been attempted face down- as the words do not support that kind of assuming.

 

The WBF has been satisfied for decades with the language of L54; the effect of which being that it does not supply remedies to an OLOOT which is not accompanied by a face down lead by offender's partner. Perhaps it needs to be pointed out that an OLOOT is a POOT and that L56 deals with LOOT and L53 deals with POOT. Another way to say it is that an OLOOT that is not remedied by L54 would fall under L56 (not very well… being an understatement).

HUH???

One of the first things we learned when training for Director in 1980 was that presumed declarer had 5 (five) options when his RHO made an opening lead out of turn and a correct opening lead had not simultaneously been made:

1: Accept it and face his own cards as Dummy

2: Accept it and have presumed Dummy face his cards, then play the second card to the trick from his own hand (as Declarer)

3, 4 and 5: Refuse it and choose from his three options for a major penalty card.

[axman]

HUH???

One of the first things we learned when training for Director in 1980 was that presumed declarer had 5 (five) options when his RHO made an opening lead out of turn and a correct opening lead had not simultaneously been made:

1: Accept it and face his own cards as Dummy

2: Accept it and have presumed Dummy face his cards, then play the second card to the trick from his own hand (as Declarer)

3, 4 and 5: Refuse it and choose from his three options for a major penalty card.

Which likely was so thirty years ago; yet today it is not necessarily so when ruling in accordance with law.

[barmar]

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out that an OLOOT is a POOT and that L56 deals with LOOT and L53 deals with POOT. Another way to say it is that an OLOOT that is not remedied by L54 would fall under L56 (not very well… being an understatement).

An Opening Lead Out of Turn is a Pass Out of Turn? Or is there some other meaning for POOT?

 

And how does L53 deal with POOT? The title is "Lead out of turn accepted"

[barmar]

Which likely was so thirty years ago; yet today it is not necessarily so when ruling in accordance with law.

I don't think those 5 options have changed in recent revisions. Could you explain why you think it's no longer true?

[axman]

I don't think those 5 options have changed in recent revisions. Could you explain why you think it's no longer true?

L54: When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Also:

 

As noted before, L54 text controls 54ABCDE. The conditions of that control are a faced OLOOT AND offender's partner also leads face down. Without both conditions the law requires 'to look' elsewhere for a remedy, if any, as dictated by 81B2.

[gordontd]

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

[blackshoe]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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