[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2014-June-25, 04:26, said:

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.

Maybe. The point I was making was that the TD is in a position to determine what really happened, and we aren't privy to that. Lanor Fow (below), however, points out we can expand, hypothesize, make up our own reality. This is probably a good thing for abstract (general) discussion of the topic, but not good in resolving the OP's concerns.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-June-25, 04:26, said:

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.

Law 54 starts "when an opening lead is faced" so we have to determine if the card was faced. The laws use this word in several places, but nowhere do they define it. So what does the dictionary say? My Oxford American English Dictionary says "be positioned with the face or front toward (someone or something)" and "face up: with the face or surface turned upward to view". My Oxford British English Dictionary says the same thing. A little help there, not much. There's a hint in Law 45C: "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played". Let's run with that. Was the card held so that it was possible for the defender's partner to see its face? Maybe, maybe not. That should normally be a fact for the TD to determine at the table. All we know is that partner claimed he didn't see it. If he could have seen it, Law 54 applies. If not, there was no opening lead, out of turn or otherwise, the player puts the card back in his hand, and his partner leads.

The question in the OP was "is that right?" It refers to the suggestion that the player who "started to lead out of turn" can put the card back in his hand. OP stated that the director determined that the partner of this player could not have seen the face of the card, so the answer to this question is a resounding YES.


'Ah has spoken!" -- Mammy Yokum

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-June-25, 08:16, said:

Law 54 starts "when an opening lead is faced" so we have to determine if the card was faced. The laws use this word in several places, but nowhere do they define it. So what does the dictionary say? My Oxford American English Dictionary says "be positioned with the face or front toward (someone or something)" and "face up: with the face or surface turned upward to view". My Oxford British English Dictionary says the same thing. A little help there, not much. There's a hint in Law 45C: "A defender's card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played". Let's run with that. Was the card held so that it was possible for the defender's partner to see its face? Maybe, maybe not. That should normally be a fact for the TD to determine at the table. All we know is that partner claimed he didn't see it. If he could have seen it, Law 54 applies. If not, there was no opening lead, out of turn or otherwise, the player puts the card back in his hand, and his partner leads.

In my honest opinion the Director must first of all establish that the card was actually faced (in the meaning of the laws) before he can rule for instance OLOOT.
(There is a variation of "don't put the cart before the horse" here.)

If it was faced then the Director must establish whether it was faced in an act of playing the card or just exposed. Remember that we are within the auction period until we determine that an opening lead has taken place.

So the director's reasoning should be:

If the card was not faced then just restore the card to the hand, end of story.
- else (the card was indeed faced)
if it was not led then apply Law 24 (and subsequently Law 50), else apply Law 54.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-June-25, 08:38, said:

So the director's reasoning should be:

If the card was not faced then just restore the card to the hand, end of story.
- else (the card was indeed faced)
if it was not led then apply Law 24 (and subsequently Law 50), else apply Law 54.

We seem to be repeating the same thing back and forth. I think we're in agreement here, at least about the way the director should go about ruling.

[barmar]

Other than dropping the card accidentally, what would you consider to be an exposure that isn't a lead?

[pran]

 barmar, on 2014-June-25, 13:00, said:

Other than dropping the card accidentally, what would you consider to be an exposure that isn't a lead?

Are you serious?

Can't you imagine a card becoming exposed without being detached from a hand, just to mention one example?

Cards obviously played and cards accidentally dropped are extremes, there are many other possibilities and the Director must rule in each case.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2014-June-24, 15:02, said:

I shall leave it there.

Since when we have had four more posts from you in this thread!

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-June-25, 16:16, said:

Are you serious?

Can't you imagine a card becoming exposed without being detached from a hand, just to mention one example?

There are players who have trouble holding their cards back, but this usually just allows a defender to glimpse them, I don't think I've ever seen someone who held them in such a way that partner could see it.

But I think I intended that to include other types of accidental slips, not just dropping. Occasionally while I'm sorting my cards, one of them will slip and I catch it before it falls out of the hand, and it might spin around in the process.

Basically, my question is: there are accidental exposures and leads, are there any other possibilities? My point being that it's almost always obvious whether a card was exposed accidentally. If it's not an accident, does that automatically make it a lead, and fall under the law regarding a faced opening lead out of turn? Or is there still something the TD has to judge?

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2014-June-26, 22:52, said:

Basically, my question is: there are accidental exposures and leads, are there any other possibilities?

I once saw an opponent bid 2♦, by putting the ♦2 on the table. IMO that was neither an accidental exposure nor a lead.

Rik

[pran]

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

Since when we have had four more posts from you in this thread!

Please forgive me for (again) answering direct questions

 barmar, on 2014-June-26, 22:52, said:

There are players who have trouble holding their cards back, but this usually just allows a defender to glimpse them, I don't think I've ever seen someone who held them in such a way that partner could see it.

But I think I intended that to include other types of accidental slips, not just dropping. Occasionally while I'm sorting my cards, one of them will slip and I catch it before it falls out of the hand, and it might spin around in the process.

Basically, my question is: there are accidental exposures and leads, are there any other possibilities? My point being that it's almost always obvious whether a card was exposed accidentally. If it's not an accident, does that automatically make it a lead, and fall under the law regarding a faced opening lead out of turn? Or is there still something the TD has to judge?

Yes (of course)

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-26, 23:54, said:

I once saw an opponent bid 2♦, by putting the ♦2 on the table. IMO that was neither an accidental exposure nor a lead.

Rik

Absolutely true

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2014-June-26, 23:54, said:

I once saw an opponent bid 2♦, by putting the ♦2 on the table. IMO that was neither an accidental exposure nor a lead.

Rik

If a card is exposed during the auction (that is, up until the final pass of the auction) the Laws, specifically Law 24, don't care why it was exposed. It's simply an exposed card*. Law 24 also applies to cards exposed during the clarification period (that part of the auction period after the end of the auction). During that period, if the TD determines that the exposed card was intended as an opening lead which was out of turn (usually this will be pretty obvious) then Law 54 applies. A card exposed during the play period may or may not be a little more difficult to handle. Was it a lead out of turn, a play out of turn, a second (or third, or twelfth) play to a trick to which the player has already played, or an accidentally exposed card? I don't think that, during the play period, there are other possibilities, but I'd be happy to discuss other possibilities if someone can come up with any.

*This can be complicated by "I thought the auction was over" and a face-up lead when there have not yet been three passes. IMO, even if somebody picked up his bidding cards, or knocked on the table, there have not been three passes. The only way there can have been three passes is if three players in succession put a pass card on the table, or said "pass" (which last they're not supposed to do using bidding boxes, and I would tell them so — call it a PP(Warning)). I suppose some of you will disagree with me on that, but it's what the law (in conjunction with the bidding box regulation) says.