[iviehoff]

axman, on 2012-July-09, 09:09, said:

To be a lead there must first be a bid followed by 3 consecutive passes [which hasd not yet happened]:
41A. Face-down Opening Lead...

You have quoted the law on correct procedure for making the opening lead, and say taht it if it doesn't conform with correct procedure it isn't a lead. However the law also anticipates leads being made not in accordance with correct procedure, and says what to do in such circumstances. That is why there are laws on leads out of turn and leads during the auction. If, by definition, these were not leads, we would not have these laws.

No, what defines a card led for these purposes, as to other reasons the card might have been exposed, is if the player who exposed the card thought he was leading to a trick. This is what distinguishes, for example, in other circumstances, cards led from cards accidentally dropped. It is how we tell the difference between a 5th card contributed to a trick and a premature lead to the next trick.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2012-July-09, 09:26, said:

It says that the auction continues with the premature card left on the table...

Hmmm... so OP's partner knew what he was doing when he put the card back on the table

[Fluffy]

If ♥9 had been a lead it is ridicoulous to make 2♥ the final contract by any procedure, it is nothing close to what the laws intend. NOS is taking advantage of callind director after 2♥ call is made and not before. I can't understand why some people see 2♥ as a possible final contract.


At the table director folowed the law as if the infractio hapened after 2♠ bid, but very badly, he first forced my partner to make a call, and after he picked he informed me that I have to pass. Maybe he did so for language difficulties with my partner, and anyway he bid 4♠ with 5♠ only and 17 HCP. 12 tricks were easy.


I have been thinking about the lead issue and now I am 80% condifent that my patner used a heart card to transfer to spades. He was trying to bid using the cards in his hand. I know this because he had ♥AKQ9 and he never underleads

[iviehoff]

Fluffy, on 2012-July-10, 02:19, said:

I am 80% condifent that my patner used a heart card to transfer to spades. He was trying to bid using the cards in his hand.

This seemed to be a substantial possibility to me.

[barmar]

It would have been more obvious that this is what was going on if the card he "led" had been the ♥2 -- it's hard to see how someone could mistake the ♥9 for the 2♥ bidding card.

Anyway, the proper procedure as soon as partner exposed the card is to call the director. Partner can then explain that he inadvertently used the card when he meant to bid, and we'd apply 24A. This would allow them to reach the normal contract. If the offending side defends, the ♥9 would be a minor penalty card.

[blackshoe]

One thing that each and every player ought to be taught from day one: when an irregularity occurs, don't try to "fix" it, call the director.

Frankly, the widespread violation of this principle explains two things: why the word "must" in the 1997 laws (in "must call the director" in Law 9) was replaced by "should" in the 2007 laws, and why the change really annoys the Hell out of me, particularly since I was the one who pointed out, in 2001 or thereabouts, that "must" meant a violation is "serious indeed" and that implies that a PP should almost always be given for it.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-09, 02:21, said:

This is not true. If proper procedure had taken place then Responder would know that their partner would be banned before bidding 2♥. It seems unlikely that they would choose to make a transfer bid under such circumstances.

And who is at fault, pray? Who did not call the TD when required to by Law? Ok, not the poor guy who led, since he is merely in a world of his own, but the other three are clearly at fault.

The only reasonable ruling is to let them play the hand out and let the declaring side get the result for 2♥ and the defence the result for 2♠. Give them both a bad score and perhaps next time they will call the TD.

axman, on 2012-July-09, 09:09, said:

To be a lead there must first be a bid followed by 3 consecutive passes [which hasd not yet happened]

No. There is no such rule, and in fact if you care to read the Laws that is demonstrably false. There is a Law about what happens if there is a lead during the auction, ergo, it is possible to have a lead during the auction.

axman, on 2012-July-09, 09:09, said:

The law goes to some effort to define lead:

Lead — the first card played to a trick.

and then trick:

Trick — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead.

Exactly. So whenever a player plays a card as the first card to a trick it is a lead, whether legal or illegal, timely or otherwise, and whether the trick is then completed or otherwise.

[axman]

bluejak, on 2012-July-11, 09:51, said:

And who is at fault, pray? Who did not call the TD when required to by Law? Ok, not the poor guy who led, since he is merely in a world of his own, but the other three are clearly at fault.

The only reasonable ruling is to let them play the hand out and let the declaring side get the result for 2♥ and the defence the result for 2♠. Give them both a bad score and perhaps next time they will call the TD.


No. There is no such rule, and in fact if you care to read the Laws that is demonstrably false. There is a Law about what happens if there is a lead during the auction, ergo, it is possible to have a lead during the auction.


Exactly. So whenever a player plays a card as the first card to a trick it is a lead, whether legal or illegal, timely or otherwise, and whether the trick is then completed or otherwise.

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

[RMB1]

axman, on 2012-July-11, 14:08, said:

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

It must be possible for a card to be lead during the auction period (without subsequent cards being played) because Law 24 tells us how to rule when it happens.

[dburn]

I am not sure I follow this. Responder to 1NT, intending to bid hearts to show spades, pulled a heart from his hand instead of pulling a heart (specifically the 2♥ card) from the bidding box. He wasn't leading the card - he was trying to bid with it; quite what his state of mind must have been one can only conjecture, especially since he appears to have continued to try to bid with it after his error was pointed out, but the facts as presented by Fluffy seem clear enough.

Luckily the ♥9 was nearer his thumb than any of his three honours, so the exposed ♥9 is a single card below the rank of an honour and not prematurely led. Hence Law 24A applies and there is no (further) rectification as far as the auction is concerned. Opener can bid 2♠, responder can bid what he chooses after that, and all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

[barmar]

I was just going by what Fluffy wrote in the OP -- he said "responder leads ♥9", so I assumed it was established that it was a lead. He could have said "put the ♥9 on the table as if it were a bidding card".

[Zelandakh]

axman, on 2012-July-11, 14:08, said:

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

By this logic, if I make a Lead Out of Turn and the other 3 players do not play a card to the trick then the lead never happened. Particularly interesting here would be if Dummy made a LOOT and it then came to light that there was an incorrect explanation allowing the auction to continue. The simple answer is that your are simply misreading the definition of "lead" even though several other posters have tried to clarify this for you.

Here are a pair of question for your current position: what do you think is the point of Law 24B? what is it pertaining to that is possible under your interpretation?

[bluejak]

axman, on 2012-July-11, 14:08, said:

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to

if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

When a card is led, at that moment, there are never any other cards played to the trick. Does that mean no card is ever led?

dburn, on 2012-July-11, 18:14, said:

I am not sure I follow this. Responder to 1NT, intending to bid hearts to show spades, pulled a heart from his hand instead of pulling a heart (specifically the 2♥ card) from the bidding box. He wasn't leading the card - he was trying to bid with it; quite what his state of mind must have been one can only conjecture, especially since he appears to have continued to try to bid with it after his error was pointed out, but the facts as presented by Fluffy seem clear enough.

As a later post says, we assumed the card was led because we were told the card was led, and recent arguments have solely been about whether ti is possible to lead a card [illegally, of course] during the auction.

It is quite likely true that the card was displayed and not led, but it is not totally unreasonable for us to try to answer the question as put.