[shevek]

North is about to play 3NT.
West starts to lead ♠A face up, which North sees but East doesn't.
As director, you decide by geometry that East could not have seen the card.
So the card is not played by 45c1.
That seems to suggest that West can return the card to hand and wait for East to lead.
Is that right?

[pran]

shevek, on 2014-June-22, 20:14, said:

North is about to play 3NT.
West starts to lead ♠A face up, which North sees but East doesn't.
As director, you decide by geometry that East could not have seen the card.
So the card is not played by 45c1.
That seems to suggest that West can return the card to hand and wait for East to lead.
Is that right?

I should like to know a little more about the mathematical skills of the director, more specifically how he by geometry (one of the diciplines in mathematics) was able to decide that East could not have seen the card?

Usually I rule that if an opponent can name the card exposed by a player then that player's partner "could have seen it".

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-June-22, 23:22, said:

Usually I rule that if an opponent can name the card exposed by a player then that player's partner "could have seen it".

I think that's a poor way to rule. If you get someone opposite you to slowly turn a card towards you, you will find that a player in one of the opponents' seats will always be in a position to see the card before you are. So it is patently untrue to say that if an opponent could see it, it follows that the player's partner "could have seen it".

[gordontd]

shevek, on 2014-June-22, 20:14, said:

That seems to suggest that West can return the card to hand and wait for East to lead.
Is that right?

Yes.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2014-June-23, 00:26, said:

I think that's a poor way to rule. If you get someone opposite you to slowly turn a card towards you, you will find that a player in one of the opponents's seats will always be in a position to see the card before you are. So it is patently untrue to say that if an opponent could see it, it follows that the player's partner "could have seen it".

It is even very possible for both opponents to have seen the card without partner seeing it.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-23, 03:31, said:

It is even very possible for both opponents to have seen the card without partner seeing it.

Rik

Sure it is possible, but if you are in doubt how do you rule when opponents have seen the card sufficiently to name it and offender's partner swears he has not seen it?

(Be aware that Law 45C1 is not immediately relevant here; relevant are Laws 24 and 54)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-June-23, 06:34, said:

Sure it is possible, but if you are in doubt how do you rule when opponents have seen the card sufficiently to name it and offender's partner swears he has not seen it?

Wrong question. We are not concerned with whether or not the partner has seen the card, simply with whether or not he could have seen it.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2014-June-23, 06:34, said:

Sure it is possible, but if you are in doubt how do you rule when opponents have seen the card sufficiently to name it and offender's partner swears he has not seen it?

What's normally recommended around here is to ask the offender to reproduce the action with a spare card from another pack, or a bidding card. If all players can agree on the movement of the card, it's normally possible to come to an agreement on whether offender's partner could have seen its face. If there is still reasonable doubt, I expect I would tend to rule that the face could have been seen, but I wouldn't allow myself to be influenced by claims from the defenders that they had seen the card.

pran, on 2014-June-23, 06:34, said:

(Be aware that Law 45C1 is not immediately relevant here; relevant are Laws 24 and 54)

Law 54 applies here only if there is judged to have been an opening lead out of turn. If the card has not been "faced" (according to law 45A) there has been no card played (although you could argue that a lead has been chosen and effectively made face down according to law 41A). I don't see how law 24 can apply at all to this situation. If the face of the card led could have been seen by partner the opening lead has been faced and the auction period is over (law 22B1).

[pran]

pran, on 2014-June-23, 06:34, said:

(Be aware that Law 45C1 is not immediately relevant here; relevant are Laws 24 and 54)

VixTD, on 2014-June-23, 07:09, said:

Law 54 applies here only if there is judged to have been an opening lead out of turn. If the card has not been "faced" (according to law 45A) there has been no card played (although you could argue that a lead has been chosen and effectively made face down according to law 41A). I don't see how law 24 can apply at all to this situation. If the face of the card led could have been seen by partner the opening lead has been faced and the auction period is over (law 22B1).

Assuming that the card in question is deemed exposed. Unless it is exposed in an action specifically that of making an opening lead (out of turn) it is a card exposed during the auction period (which lasts until the faced openikng lead has been made) and the clarification period is not yet over. Therefore Law 24 is the initial relevant Law.

However, once it is deemed to having been exposed in an act of (deliberately) playing the card then we go directly to Law 54, we never go via Law 45C1.

[blackshoe]

It doesn't matter whether either opponent, or both opponents, have seen the card. It doesn't matter if partner swears he did not see it. It only matters if partner could have seen it. In order to answer that question, the director needs to know how the card was held and moved. So I agree with Vix - ask him to reproduce the movement, see if everyone agrees that's how it was, and judge accordingly.

I would actually start with Law 22, which defines the end of the auction period. It says the auction period ends when either defender faces an opening lead. What does "faces" mean? Now we go to Law 24, which says

Quote

When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner…

So if the card was not faced, the player puts it back in his hand. If it was faced, then we're no longer in the auction period, and Law 54 applies.

I agree that Law 45 is not relevant.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-23, 18:26, said:

It doesn't matter whether either opponent, or both opponents, have seen the card. It doesn't matter if partner swears he did not see it. It only matters if partner could have seen it. In order to answer that question, the director needs to know how the card was held and moved. So I agree with Vix - ask him to reproduce the movement, see if everyone agrees that's how it was, and judge accordingly.

I would actually start with Law 22, which defines the end of the auction period. It says the auction period ends when either defender faces an opening lead. What does "faces" mean? Now we go to Law 24, which says

Quote

When the Director determines that during the auction period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner…

So if the card was not faced, the player puts it back in his hand. If it was faced, then we're no longer in the auction period, and Law 54 applies.

I agree that Law 45 is not relevant.

You are going too fast.

Law 24 only says that the card (when deemed exposed) shall remain faced on the table until the auction period ends. Then if the offender becomes a defender the card becomes a penalty card.

We only go (directly) to Law 54 if it is deemed that the card was not only exposed, but exposed in an act of making the opening lead out of turn.

I agree that the probability is high for the latter being the case here, but it is important to distinguish between the cases where the exposed card simply becomes a penalty card by declarer's RHO (in which case no opening lead has been faced, the auction period does not end, and Law 50 rather than Law 54 eventually applies), and the cases where there is a genuine opening lead out of turn.

"Splitting hairs" ? - no, I don't think so.

[VixTD]

pran, on 2014-June-23, 10:54, said:

Assuming that the card in question is deemed exposed. Unless it is exposed in an action specifically that of making an opening lead (out of turn) it is a card exposed during the auction period (which lasts until the faced openikng lead has been made) and the clarification period is not yet over. Therefore Law 24 is the initial relevant Law.

How else do you think it came to be exposed? The original post said:

shevek, on 2014-June-22, 20:14, said:

North is about to play 3NT. West starts to lead ♠A face up....

If the card was exposed, a lead has been made and the auction period is over.

[blackshoe]

Vix beat me to it.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-June-24, 06:35, said:

How else do you think it came to be exposed? The original post said:


If the card was exposed, a lead has been made and the auction period is over.

That is for the Director to clarify and rule under Law 24. There is nothing in the laws that prevents the Director from ending in Law 54, but he must always consider the situation and judge whether he shall instead end in (say) Law 50.

If for instance West was the player to close the auction with the third consecutive pass, but instead of passing (or taking back his bid cards) just exposed his card in an act of playing it then it is not automatically an opening lead out of turn but should probably be ruled a card exposed during the auction for which Law 24B (and not Law 54) shall apply, ending in Law 50!

Sure this is a technicality, but it is still important. A player can for example never prematurely end the clarification period with an irregularity and thereby prevent opponents from enjoying their privileges during the clarification period.

[blackshoe]

Sven, you have a point, in the general case. But in this case, we know it was a lead, because the OP told us so.

[pran]

shevek, on 2014-June-22, 20:14, said:

North is about to play 3NT.
West starts to lead ♠A face up, which North sees but East doesn't.
As director, you decide by geometry that East could not have seen the card.
So the card is not played by 45c1.
That seems to suggest that West can return the card to hand and wait for East to lead.
Is that right?

blackshoe, on 2014-June-24, 09:12, said:

Sven, you have a point, in the general case. But in this case, we know it was a lead, because the OP told us so.

Well, OP's story was at the best incomplete.

I have no idea how many times when being called to irregularities I have had to investigate what really was the case because the players only told me what they thought was essential and overlooked important circumstances.

OP here told us there was an opening lead out of turn that had progressed to a state where other players at the table had seen the card's face. Based on that information alone we are clearly in Law 54 territory and there is no way West could withdraw the card.

My point has simply all the time been that we haven't been told enough to make a ruling, further investigation is required.

I shall leave it there.

[aguahombre]

That is what we must deal with.

When called to the table, we are told someone's conclusion or summation of what occurred; and, we can say, "Give me the facts and I will proceed."

On these fora, we have to accept what we get.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-24, 21:43, said:

That is what we must deal with.

When called to the table, we are told someone's conclusion or summation of what occurred; and, we can say, "Give me the facts and I will proceed."

On these fora, we have to accept what we get.

So the correct answer to OP's question should have been:

Once you stated that there was an opening lead out of turn (in progress) you must apply Law 54 and there is no way West can be allowed to return the card to his hand.

[Lanor Fow]

Even if it were determined that this were an opening lead out of turn, there would be two options for declarer where West can return the card to his hand, and one other where he might return it to his hand later.

That said, I disgree that we have to make that assumption from the post. The only part that assumes that is the title, which is often given as an indication of the possible irregularity, rather than an assertion that that happened. If you are going on the facts in the post, then some respected posters have already argued this point.

[pran]

Lanor Fow, on 2014-June-25, 05:40, said:

Even if it were determined that this were an opening lead out of turn, there would be two options for declarer where West can return the card to his hand, and one other where he might return it to his hand later.

That said, I disgree that we have to make that assumption from the post. The only part that assumes that is the title, which is often given as an indication of the possible irregularity, rather than an assertion that that happened. If you are going on the facts in the post, then some respected posters have already argued this point.

OP asked: That seems to suggest that West can return the card to hand and wait for East to lead. Is that right?

The answer to this question is a big NO!

(You obviously have in mind the situation after Law 50 is eventually involved, but that situation was not embedded in OP's question.)

And either we must base our ruling solely on the information given by OP in which case we go directly to Law 54, or we must investigate the circumstances and start with Law 24.