[blackshoe]

Heh. Nothing wrong with that. Even if you're allowed to call attention to an irregularity, you're not required to do so.

Your original questions were:

1. Can North call attention to the irregularity(ies)? Sven: No. Me: No.
2. Is North dummy at the point he notices the problem? Sven: No. Me: Yes, because only part of South's hand has been spread at this point. This is a minor detail.
3. Does South's first card hitting the table constitute his exercising the option to be dummy, will-he, nil-he? Sven: Yes. Me: Yes.

There've been a couple of others posting, but they seem to be in agreement with either Sven or I.

The "real facts" scenario is why one defender should never answer the other's question whether he is on lead. And why I would like to see the bidding cards remain on the table until the opening lead is faced (by the proper defender) in the ACBL.

[campboy]

pran, on Sep 5 2010, 03:37 PM, said:

From "INTRODUCTION TO THE 2007 LAWS OF DUPLICATE BRIDGE":
The Laws are designed to define correct procedure
and
“may” do (failure to do it is not wrong),
“does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized)

From "Definitions": Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

Where in the laws is Declarer's option to spread his cards after an opening lead out of turn defined as correct procedure?

While the introduction merely says that "failure to do it is not wrong" I would imagine the writers think it goes without saying that doing it is not wrong either. There are lots of other laws which say that a player "may" do something (without saying that he does it), and I cannot imagine that you would consider all these actions irregularities. Furthermore, unless law 54C applies, all of declarer's options are decribed as things he "may" do. Which, if any, of them do you consider not to be irregularities?

[blackshoe]

It is not always clear to me, where the laws use the word "may", whether it is used in the sense of probability, or of permission. Or whether it makes a difference.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 5 2010, 11:49 PM, said:

It is not always clear to me, where the laws use the word "may", whether it is used in the sense of probability, or of permission. Or whether it makes a difference.

It is my understanding, and I am pretty sure that "may" expresses permission

"May" certainly does not define "correct procedure" but rather a permissible exception from "correct procedure".

Example: "Correct procedure" during the auction is to make calls in rotation and otherwisse keep quiet. However each player is permitted to ("may") ask certain questions etc. on specific conditions. This does not imply that interrupting the auction with such questions whenever allowed is "correct procedure".

[campboy]

Do you really think it is an irregularity to ask the meaning of opponents' auction? Do you really think that when a player has multiple options following an opponent's infraction it is an irregularity to select any of them? Don't be ridiculous.

I should think it is obvious that the laws say a player does something to indicate that it is correct procedure and that failing to do it is incorrect procedure, but use "may" when neither doing it or not is incorrect. This is completely in line with the section from the introduction you quoted.

[pran]

campboy, on Sep 6 2010, 11:41 AM, said:

Do you really think it is an irregularity to ask the meaning of opponents' auction? Do you really think that when a player has multiple options following an opponent's infraction it is an irregularity to select any of them? Don't be ridiculous.

I should think it is obvious that the laws say a player does something to indicate that it is correct procedure and that failing to do it is incorrect procedure, but use "may" when neither doing it or not is incorrect. This is completely in line with the section from the introduction you quoted.

Yes, as it is not strictly speaking "correct procedure" it is an irregularity, but of course no infraction.

The "correct procedure" consists of the dealing of thirteen cards to each player as prescribed, then the auction consisting of calls by each player in rotation as prescribed, and finally the play of the thirteen tricks as prescribed.

Questions, explanations etc. are auxiliary elements that although no infraction in any way are not part of "correct procedure".

This is why you find in the laws for instance that "a player may ask", but not that "a player asks".

[campboy]

So asking a question is a violation of correct procedure, so an irregularity? It would follow that if my opponent asks a question during the auction, I can draw attention to that irregularity, at which point the director must be called. Oh, but law 9A only says I "may" draw attention to an irregularity, so drawing attention to an irregularity is itself an irregularity. And someone can call attention to that, at which point the director must be called (again). Ah, also, if I don't want my opponent to ask a question I'm allowed to attempt to prevent him from doing so (law 9A3), although of course trying to prevent him is also an irregularity ("may" again) so he can try to prevent me from trying to prevent him from asking a question...

No, really, don't be ridiculous. If the laws "define correct procedure" and they say you may do something, then it follows that doing it is consistent with, though not necessarily required by, correct procedure. Follows by English, that is; the introduction adds the information that we may remove the "necessarily" from the previous sentence. As suggested by the introduction, the difference between "does" and "may do" is that in the former case failing to do so is a violation of correct procedure.

[mycroft]

The legal question of whether North is dummy at the time both East and South's cards are on the table is an interesting one, but very much in the "angels pin-dancing" realm (please note, I am as interested in legal lacunae as anyone, this isn't a snub; I'm just going to ignore it for the practical this time).

I wouldn't censure North for stopping play and calling the TD, even if she is technically dummy - because the practical outcome is already fixed. But it needs to be fixed with the TD reading the Law, not waiting until trick 3 for E/W (or South!) to notice that it's being played the wrong way up.

The OP, of course, didn't have an issue; after 1H-1NT; 2NT-3NT if the opponents lead out of turn, there is only one option :-).