[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-08, 11:30, said:

Speaking of "inconsistency" the combination of comments 24.7 and 24.8 leads to the inconsistency that the opening lead is "part of the play" even though it is chosen during the auction period!

Did you overlook the words "for the purposes of Law 50D snd 50E" which eliminate any inconsistency?

[axman]

pran, on 2013-July-08, 15:03, said:

Did you overlook the words "for the purposes of Law 50D snd 50E" which eliminate any inconsistency?

The effect of this 24.8 is to emphasize that PC penalties apply to PCs rather than exposed cards.

In the supposed situation exposed cards during the auction period do not become PC until the auction period is over:

Re L22B. End of Auction Period

1. The Auction Period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead.

Thus, the OL is played prior to the creation of PCs.

[aguahombre]

axman, on 2013-July-08, 15:47, said:

Re L22B. End of Auction Period

1. The Auction Period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead.

Thus, the OL is played prior to the creation of PCs.

And we seem to have, when the defender who faced an opening lead was the wrong defender, a period which is neither the Auction Period nor the Play Period. During this time, Law 54 prematurely uses the terms Declarer and Dummy when in fact that person is not yet Declarer or Dummy. Dummy has no right to participate in the play; yet by the mere act of putting down one or more cards is becoming dummy and has participated in the play by making himself dummy and/or taking away partner's option to make him Declarer.

All just terminolgy, of course, with no particular need to change anything unless we want to short circuit some SB who tries to exact a penalty for exceeding Dummy's rights.

[blackshoe]

In the case at hand, the "defender's" faced card was not an opening lead.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-08, 19:45, said:

In the case at hand, the "defender's" faced card was not an opening lead.

I know. I was just throwing another worthless tidbit into the thread...where L22B sub 1 calls a lead by either defender an opening lead, ending the auction period.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough. I just didn't want folks — including me — to get any more confused than they already are.

[pran]

Definitions said:

Defender An opponent of (presumed) declarer.

So what is the problem?