[jillybean]

North is Declarer and their RHO asks 'is it my lead?", Declarer confirms, yes.
RHO faces opening lead, declarer starts placing cards "in dummy".

I'm called to the table.

54A tells me the play continues with dummy (South) as Declarer.

End of problem?

[axman]

jillybean, on 2025-August-02, 21:05, said:

North is Declarer and their RHO asks 'is it my lead?", Declarer confirms, yes.
RHO faces opening lead, declarer starts placing cards "in dummy".

I'm called to the table.

54A tells me the play continues with dummy (South) as Declarer.

End of problem?

Insufficient evidence.

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:

The L54 specification 'offender’s partner leads face down' has not been noted. Since it has not, there is no motivation to enforce the L54A etc etc etc remedy.

There is something to be said that W was induced to face his card OOT and until E plays he is entitled to correct (return card to hand and not be penalized/UI). However, that is not what the Law says. L47E1 requires the induced play be retracted (without regard who has played subsequently). Sounds like a lot of L67 rulings to me.

It seems that whatever happened becomes a fait accompli. But untangling the L53A gordian knot is a puzzler. 47E1 speaks of not merely automatic retraction of the induced play (but also forbidding condoning) while 53A condoning does not qualify 47E1 supremacy when condoning occurs in spite of 47E1.

I think better illumination is in order.

L47E1 automatically unplays the induced play. This has consequences. For instance, with no POOT to condone (it being unplayed automatically), a player that erroneously believes the miscreant card can be condoned and does so (wittingly or not) is probably infracting something or other.

Which leaves the riddle of what happens when it is discovered that the automatically retracted card was not returned to hand in a timely fashion.

This post has been edited by axman: Yesterday, 09:47

[mycroft]

If "declarer" hadn't in fact said "Yes" then yes, this is exactly a 54A situation.

But they did (one of the reasons I dislike this "new cool trick" of implying the opponents are required to accede to your (rather than your partner's) lead before you will do so). Now 47E1 applies. And now there's an issue, because 47E1 says LHO "may not" accept the lead, while 54A says "if declarer begins to spread their hand...their entire hand must be spread". Both of which are "near-requirement" phrases.

Which supersedes? The commentary says nothing.

I'd be willing to argue that given that 48A gives us an out, even if 48B1 says not to (but 47E1 says we can't follow 54A), that we take that.

But I have had a question brewing for "after Philadelphia" because, you know, they're *busy* and these questions, even if they have happened in the club, aren't "can't wait a week" level. This just adds to that question.

And anyone who reads the first sentence of 54 as strictly qualifying (as in, this law doesn't apply if that situation didn't happen) can't direct. No, literally, will not be able to run a game face-to-face because after ruling on the first OLooT ("No law applies"), they won't have a game next week to direct. Clearly this is intended to point out a situation that may occur, not one that is required to trigger the rest of Law 54. Is it badly written? Well, this is not the first "these words shouldn't be here" I've mentioned *this week*, and two years ago I put in a note that it needs to be removed or turned into a sub-Law for 2027, so - probably? But everyone knows how the Law is intended to be ruled, and we do it. I am less confident in my thoughts on "what supersedes, 54 or 47", and I am - uncomfortable by both sides' ability to game the system.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-August-03, 12:09, said:

But everyone knows how the Law is intended to be ruled, and we do it. I am less confident in my thoughts on "what supersedes, 54 or 47", and I am - uncomfortable by both sides' ability to game the system.

Fully agree on both. I confess I did think you were a bit petty about people gaming the reply to "my lead?", but I had not noticed just how clumsily 54 and 47 were written in this context.

[blackshoe]

It may depend on the meaning of the word "the" in the phrase "the opening lead", which appears several times in the laws. If "the" refers to the correct opening lead, then the phrase refers to something that hasn't happened yet. If "the" refers to whatever opening lead may have appeared on the table, then it has happened. This matters because if the opening lead hasn't happened yet we're still in the auction period, and all these face up cards that Jilly saw when she arrived at the table are cards exposed during the auction period, and Law 24 applies to them all. OTOH if "the opening lead" has happened, we are irrevocably in the play period (see Law 41C) and we seem to have a conflict between Law 47E1 and Law 54.

I think the phrase "and offender's partner leads face down" in Law 54 is a bit of a red herring here, as it often happens there's only one lead, not two. This bit simply tells the director that the card nobody except its owner has seen is put back in his hand. What happens to the face-up card will be determined by the rest of Law 54.

It seems to me that because Law 47E1 applies only when the player who made the lead did so after mistakenly being told by an opponent that he (the leader) is on lead, this Law is more specific than Law 54, and therefor it (Law 47E1) takes precedence. So I would rule that the mistaken lead is retracted and returned to hand. Now what? North, who is declarer, has started to face his hand. This looks a bit like Law 54 territory, but I'm not so sure. First there is at this point no opening lead, so we're not yet in trick one. So I would rule that declarer has exposed some of his cards, which he should put back in his hand, and the correct defender should lead to trick one and on we go.

There remains the question what information is authorized and what not authorized. Law 16C applies to West's withdrawn card: knowledge of that card is AI to East and UI to North (and South, but that won't matter in a minute). Knowledge of the cards North faced thinking he was dummy is AI to both East and West.

tl;dr: To North, pick up your exposed cards. To East and West, knowledge of North's exposed cards is AI to you. To West, pick up your lead and put it back in your hand. To East, knowledge of West's card is AI to you, now make your opening lead face down. IAW Law 17D (and see Law 41C) we are now in the Clarification Period. Once we're done with that East faces the opening lead and South lays out the Dummy. Proceed with the Play.

If the first rule of bridge is "you must follow suit", then the zeroth rule of bridge is "you must pay attention".

OTOH, maybe I'm getting senile.

[jillybean]

?

[axman]

mycroft, on 2025-August-03, 12:09, said:

Well, this is not the first "these words shouldn't be here" I've mentioned *this week*, and two years ago I put in a note that it needs to be removed or turned into a sub-Law for 2027, so - probably? But everyone knows how the Law is intended to be ruled, and we do it. I am less confident in my thoughts on "what supersedes, 54 or 47", and I am - uncomfortable by both sides' ability to game the system.

a. I think that the message of supersedes is that of replacement.

b. There is something to be said for executing the law as written. Namely the speed of getting it fixed:

L81B2 The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

L72A Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws.

[pescetom]

As mycroft pointed out, the Director can't just sit there reading both Laws and scratching his head, he has to decide a reasonable solution.

My Taliban heart is with Blackshoe and I would proceed that way if Declarer had exposed only a few cards. But if the entire hand is on the table I would instruct South to become Declarer, notifying NS that they would not get to keep any advantage that accrued from the reversal.