[661_Pete]

Note: I put this here because this is not really a Law issue - as far as I'm concerned the Law was observed quite correctly; it's more about the effects of a ruling. Mods: move if you think proper.

I was sitting East here; pairs MPs, NS vul, dealer S:

---

North became declarer in 3♥ after W had opened and re-bid his diamonds. I was all poised to table my Q♦ when to my alarm I saw the A♦ face-up opposite! It is normal practice in our club to make the opening lead face-down and ask "any questions" as per Law 41A - I don't know how this went astray on this occasion but it's a pity, seeing as I could have alerted partner's out-of-turn lead before any harm done!

Anyway declarer chose to call the TD who explained the two options: either he could accept the lead, in which he had the choice that either he or his partner could be declarer - or he could refuse it, in which case the A♦ was a MPC. He understandably chose the latter, and then forbade me to lead a diamond. I accepted this in good grace of course: as far as I can recall this is the first time I've ever had a lead penalty imposed on me. I then had to ponder whether my partner had an entry elsewhere. By good fortune I chose to lead a club....

But it made no difference. West was able to cash his three winners but on the third diamond North could afford to ruff high, so I didn't get my trump trick. After losing the ♠ finesse he still landed his nine tricks safely enough.

I looked at the travellers and another table reached the same contract and made it - presumably without mishap! So I don't see how my partner's lead-out-of-turn made an atom of difference. Other tables bid different contracts including 4♥-1, so we didn't do too well on the board - but that's another story.

It is not always the case that infractions like this are benign, though. Perhaps others would like to contribute their own triumphs/disasters based on such an occurrence.

[Cyberyeti]

A famous one from years ago under different rules went as follows:

Defender A leads Q♦ out of turn against 4M

Director gives declarer options, which include the option to demand the lead of a specific suit

Declarer looks at his club holding and decides he'd like one led into his AQ and the penalty card is picked up.

Defender B says "I have no clubs" and there is no further penalty, eyes up his ♦AKxxx, leads a small one, partner wins with the J, club ruff, ♦ to the Q, club ruff.

Couldn't happen under today's laws, but I don't believe equity was restored under the rules as they then were.

[pescetom]

661_Pete, on 2018-July-27, 08:05, said:

Anyway declarer chose to call the TD who explained the two options: either he could accept the lead, in which he had the choice that either he or his partner could be declarer - or he could refuse it, in which case the A♦ was a MPC. He understandably chose the latter, and then forbade me to lead a diamond.

My understanding is that if he forbids (or obliges) you to lead a diamond then the A♦ is no longer an MPC. Not that it makes any difference in this case, just to avoid confusion.

[dokoko]

pescetom, on 2018-July-27, 10:34, said:

My understanding is that if he forbids (or obliges) you to lead a diamond then the A♦ is no longer an MPC. Not that it makes any difference in this case, just to avoid confusion.

You are both right!

If the lead out of turn is refused, the lead card becomes a major penalty card. As the partner of the offender is on lead, the existence of the MPC gives declarer three options one of them being to forbid the lead of the suit of the MPC; in this case the ♦A ceases to be a penalty card and West could have led anything else after winning trick 1 (but understandably didn't).

[dokoko]

Some thirty years ago, a friend of mine was playing a grand slam in a team event when his RHO led out of turn.

We had a "rule" concerning leads out of turn, which went as follows: When a player doesn't know he isn't on lead, he is high favorite not to find the best lead. So when in doubt you should accept the lead out of turn.

My friend did exactly that - only to see his LHO ruff the first trick. Instead of winning 13 imps, he lost 17.

So we updated our "rule": When in doubt accept the lead. In a grand slam, however, ask offender's partner to lead the suit in question.

[dsLawsd]

Interesting story. Looks like 3 hearts always makes.
Once West didn't bid 4 Diamonds, the board seems lost.
I like the new rule as long as ethical partnerships abound that don't arrange to lead out of turn. And, of course, we are required to call the director and not make our own rulings after an irregularity.

Sometimes, it is just the rub of the green.

[Vampyr]

dsLawsd, on 2018-July-27, 23:44, said:

Interesting story. Looks like 3 hearts always makes.
Once West didn't bid 4 Diamonds, the board seems lost.
I like the new rule as long as ethical partnerships abound that don't arrange to lead out of turn. And, of course, we are required to call the director and not make our own rulings after an irregularity.

Yes. The comment in the OP that the declarer “chose” to call the director is just incorrect. Although next time perhaps the director will bring the lawbook to the table.

[ggwhiz]

The aggrieved party gets to make a decision and live with it.

Check out the Hall of Fame Induction of Mark Molson in the Atlanta Bulletin (Friday?).

Boris Baran recalls a hand they played where they both cue bid hearts, landed in 7nt and got a small heart lead out of turn. Mark said "It doesn't matter" (as I first heard the story) and tabled his dummy. The hearts broke............. 7-6.