OLOOT

Kennycg

An opening lead out of turn occurred at a bridge club I play at.
South is playing the contract.
East played an opening lead out of turn and West, the correct leader, not noticing East’s OLOOT, then played the 3S.
It was ruled that the 3S was now a major penalty card (law 49), regardless of which option South chose from the OLOOT mantra.
Is that the correct ruling?

ais523

If a defender's partner has seen (or could have seen) a card from that defender's hand, and the defender attempted to lead it, it's a major penalty card pretty much regardless of anything (the only situation in which it wouldn't be is if the facing of the card was somehow dummy's or declarer's fault).

Was East's attempted lead face up or face down? If it's face up, there's no real interesting question here (they're both major penalty cards, declarer gets to choose which player leads and they'll have to lead the penalty card unless declarer exchanges the other defender's penalty card for a lead restriction). So the more interesting case is if it's face down; and the reason it's interesting is not so much about whether West's correct lead is a penalty card (it is), but whether declarer gets to accept the face-down opening lead.

I believe that a face-down attempted opening lead by East (a non-leader) is not actually a played card, and thus declarer can't accept the "lead out of turn":

• Law 41A requires the defender on declarer's left to make the opening lead face down. Placing a card face down if you aren't that player is undefined (and thus presumably an irregularity that creates UI but has no other effect).
• Law 45C1 specifies that a defender's card is played if their partner could see its face. If it's face-down, their partner can only see the back of the card, so it isn't a played card.
• Most importantly, Law 53A allows accepting a lead out of turn only if the card is (or has been) face up. The option is not available if the card is face-down.

(Not technically relevant, but a good parallel: Law 54's preamble covers a face-up OLOOT together with a face-down OLIT, the opposite of the situation being discussed here. The OLIT gets withdrawn without inspection and only the OLOOT is considered.)

So my ruling, assuming East's card was face down: East has irregularly placed a card face down on the table, and gets to pick it back up again (without West getting to see what it is; this might require getting East to re-sort their hand). Declarer does not get to make any decision regarding the "OLOOT" because the card is face down, and the usual OLOOT options are only available for face-up OLOOTs. West's card is irregularly face up, thus becomes a penalty card; however, West is now on opening lead, thus they must legally lead that card (which technically implies turning it face down and then back face up again, a step which is likely to be redundant in practice). UI exists, but in most cases will not demonstrably suggest anything, and thus is unlikely to require an adjustment.

GrahamC

As a non-expert on this forum I like questions like this. The thread often pans out in unexpected directions.

As a start consider Law 60C:

C. Play by Offending Side before Assessment of Rectification
A play by a member of the offending side before rectification has been assessed does not affect the rights of the opponents, and may itself be subject to rectification.

There was an original OLOOT, and then a second infraction which can be be subject to rectification, which looks like major penalty card to me, so in agreement with you there.

We now have Law 50 for how the normal rules adjust to take account of the extra penalty card. Law 50D1b looks relevant:

D. Disposition of Major Penalty Card
(b) The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play restriction, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity.