[VixTD]

blackshoe, on Dec 18 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

55B does not come into play until you decide, under 55A, which defender's desire shall govern. There is no contradiction.

Nonsense. That's not what it says at all. One defender has required a retraction, so 55B2 applies. Both defenders have expressed different opinions as to whether the lead should be accepted or not, so 55A applies as well. These lead to contradictory conclusions.

You can create practical solutions to this kind of problem by deciding which way to rule when the laws come into conflict with each other (this is preferable to going round and round in circles), but don't invent spurious "priorities" which are not mentioned in the book, or pretend the laws say something they don't just to wish the problem away.

[bluejak]

I am sorry, VixTD, I do not understand your problem. Please explain where I am going wrong.

There is a lead out of turn from one of declarer's hands. This is pointed out and the TD summoned, or maybe not.

Now, one of three things happens. Most of the time, a defender accepts the lead under L55A, and it is accepted, or a defender rejects the lead under L55A and it is rejected which leads to L55B2. Occasionally they disagree, and L55A tells the TD what to do, leading to it being accepted, or rejected which leads to L55B2.

Now, that seems clear enough to me, so please tell me where you think I have gone wrong?

[lamford]

I mostly agree with bluejak here, but there would be no ambiguity if 55B said:

<snip> and if either defender requires him to retract such lead (except as provided by 55A) <snip>

This is clearly what is intended, and I regard VixTD's view of what it means as non-mainstream.

And I am sure that this is not the only example of needing to decide on which Law takes priority.

[Vampyr]

It is interesting that the phrase "without consultation" has been removed, and that both defenders are allowed to express their opinions. This opens up some interesting possibilities.

Let's say a pair have agreed to play different carding signals after declarer's lead out of turn. Now LHO in this example may accept or reject the lead, without his decision being binding. This must be legal according to 40B3.

So his acceptance or rejection of the lead will be based on which carding method he wishes partner to use. So far, so good. But if LHO rejects the lead and RHO accepts it, though, carding will be normal (I believe that to do otherwise would be illegal communication), but RHO will probably be able to work out LHO's problem.

Somehow this doesn't seem right.