[aguahombre]

"A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances"


The following are indisputable facts. I know this because I made them up.

Declarer has misled his RHO into believing it was his lead, and RHO leads.
LHO actually should have been on lead.

RHO is my SB. Paul isn't the only one allowed to have his own SB. In presence of the TD, RHO states, "I may retract my lead without rectification, but the law says 'may retract' and therefore I am not required to retract my lead. I choose to lead this card."

Declarer, however, is aspiring to be a SB in his own right. His position is based on:

"A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances." This can be interpreted two ways; but either way, Declarer claims the lead must be retracted.

If 'may' means Declarer has the option not to accept the lead, he chooses that option. However, interpreted differently it could mean he is not allowed to accept RHO's lead and therefore would be unable to continue playing the hand after that lead -- for that would be accepting the lead.

Which SB wins?

[gordontd]

I acknowledge that the wording is imperfect, but I think that "may not" is absolute, whereas "may be retracted without further rectification" might be interpreted as offering an alternative to "may be retracted with further rectification".

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2015-October-09, 07:15, said:

I acknowledge that the wording is imperfect, but I think that "may not" is absolute, whereas "may be retracted without further rectification" might be interpreted as offering an alternative to "may be retracted with further rectification".

It should say "must be retracted without rectification", of course, but I have long given up on the lawmakers correctly phrasing the laws, or in correctly using "may" and "must".

[aguahombre]

 gordontd, on 2015-October-09, 07:15, said:

I acknowledge that the wording is imperfect, but I think that "may not" is absolute, whereas "may be retracted without further rectification" might be interpreted as offering an alternative to "may be retracted with further rectification".

That indeed would be an interesting alternative available to the person who has made the lead.

[kenrexford]

I think the issue could be one of timing, but I cannot prove it logically. "May not be accepted" seems to mean that LHO cannot say, "I accept the lead" and force the lead to be the lead. However, "may be retracted" gives the leader the option of continuing on with the lead as is. This flies in the face of the sentences being out of order, though. If you put the sentences in reverse order, this would be the obvious conclusion.

The funny thing, though, is that retraction of the lead incurs no rectification. Non-retraction of the lead does not have that same benefit. Thus, a completely different concept is this:

Say Declarer's RHO leads the club Ace because Dummy said, "Your lead." RHO has the option of retracting his lead with no further rectification. However, that option is declined. Now, RHO has insisted upon a lead out of turn, which is apparently his right.

Declarer now normally has 5 options. However, two of the normal options are to accept the lead and declare or to accept the lead and have Dummy declare. Those two options, however, cannot be exercised. So, Declarer is down to three options.




Because that interpretation is fun, I am certain that I would advocate for it.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2015-October-09, 07:05, said:

"A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances"


The following are indisputable facts. I know this because I made them up.

Declarer has misled his RHO into believing it was his lead, and RHO leads.
LHO actually should have been on lead.

RHO is my SB. Paul isn't the only one allowed to have his own SB. In presence of the TD, RHO states, "I may retract my lead without rectification, but the law says 'may retract' and therefore I am not required to retract my lead. I choose to lead this card."

Declarer, however, is aspiring to be a SB in his own right. His position is based on:

"A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances." This can be interpreted two ways; but either way, Declarer claims the lead must be retracted.

If 'may' means Declarer has the option not to accept the lead, he chooses that option. However, interpreted differently it could mean he is not allowed to accept RHO's lead and therefore would be unable to continue playing the hand after that lead -- for that would be accepting the lead.

Which SB wins?

The intention of Law 47E1 is that the misled offender's choice (whether or not) to retract the lead out of turn takes precedence over his LHO's right to accept the lead out of turn.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2015-October-09, 07:05, said:

Which SB wins?

I would send them both out behind the barn, and tell them whichever one comes back on his own feet wins.

[mycroft]

I disagree with "must". That implies that failure to do it is a [penalizable] option. "Shall". And in fact this should be passive voice (as it is), because there should be no motive actor but the TD.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2015-October-09, 07:46, said:

It should say "must be retracted without rectification", of course,

I thought that was the intent, but are there any minutes or official interpretations to back that up? Pran (below) has decided what the intent of the law is, and his proclamation is the opposite. I don't know if he has anything to back that up, either.

[pran]

 aguahombre, on 2015-October-10, 14:43, said:

I thought that was the intent, but are there any minutes or official interpretations to back that up? Pran (below) has decided what the intent of the law is, and his proclamation is the opposite. I don't know if he has anything to back that up, either.

1: Law 47E1 does not say:

A lead out of turn (or play of a card) must be retracted, however without further rectification, if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.

The use of the word "may" implies that the player (i.e. the offender) has the choice whether or not to retract the card.

2: My training as Director. (I haven't decided anything!)

[BudH]

About a month ago, I sent to ruling@acbl.org the "declarer's RHO makes opening lead and faces it after dummy incorrectly told him he was on lead."

Here is part of what I wrote:

"So there is no question about declarer not being allowed to accept the lead and from Law 47E, the lead “MAY be retracted without further rectification”.

But can the defense in any way allow the incorrect lead to stand (assuming presumed declarer did not start to face any cards as if he was dummy)? Or are their no options at all so the incorrect lead must be withdrawn and the identity of the card originally led being authorized information for the defense and unauthorized information for declarer?"
----------

I was informed the ACBL Laws Commission is going to take a look at this one. No answer back - yet.

[aguahombre]

 BudH, on 2015-October-30, 22:23, said:

About a month ago, I sent to ruling@acbl.org the "declarer's RHO makes opening lead and faces it after dummy incorrectly told him he was on lead."

Here is part of what I wrote:

"So there is no question about declarer not being allowed to accept the lead and from Law 47E, the lead “MAY be retracted without further rectification”.

But can the defense in any way allow the incorrect lead to stand (assuming presumed declarer did not start to face any cards as if he was dummy)? Or are their no options at all so the incorrect lead must be withdrawn and the identity of the card originally led being authorized information for the defense and unauthorized information for declarer?"
----------

I was informed the ACBL Laws Commission is going to take a look at this one. No answer back - yet.

Hold your breath, Bud. They will get right on it. If I remember correctly, Gary Hann has been waiting for a reply to one question since 1979.