Law 54E: When declarer attempts to make the opening lead
This is something of a rules snarl-up I noticed while reading the rules about OLOOTs to answer another thread.
Suppose the auction has concluded successfully (let's say 1NT, (Pass), Pass, (X), Pass, (Pass), Pass). Presumed declarer gets a little confused (say because in their system, bidding over 1NTX is identical to bidding after the opponents open 1NT, and the declarer forgot that that doesn't apply to the play too), and attempts to make the opening lead (face up, because this generally makes OLOOT questions more "fun").
The defenders decide to point out that the wrong player has lead, rather than accepting the lead, so Law 60A doesn't apply. (A side note: if declarer OLOOTs and their LHO thus assumes they're dummy, is this a 13 penalty card situation or is there some adjustment for the fact that declarer prompted them into it?) So the relevant Laws here are 55 (declarer leads out of turn) and 54E (declarer makes a faced opening lead out of turn). These Laws specify very different rectifications, but 54E is more specific; normally you'd go for the more specific rectification in this case.
However, Law 55 is at least more sensible. Law 54E specifies "If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies." The specific rectification is Law 24B: "If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led, offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 72C when a pass damages the non-offending side)." Nice and clear, but also pretty silly: we've just had three passes, so offender's partner's (i.e. dummy's) next turn to call is on the next board! It seems vaguely reasonable that you might want to put some sort of penalty on declarer for the irregularity, but a procedural penalty (after warnings, I hope) would make much more sense than screwing up their auction on a board that might be played against entirely different opponents.
This reasoning might imply that we should go via Law 55B1 instead in cases where the opening lead isn't accepted, which explicitly states "no further rectification" after the card is returned to declarer's hand; at least that's a rectification that might make sense, and the "no further rectification" clause arguably overrides Law 54E. That said, my main problem with this reasoning is that it implies that Law 54E doesn't do anything at all.
I've come to the conclusion that there's probably a mistake in the Laws here, and thus this seemed like a good place to post about it; either I've missed something and the people here can tell me what I missed, or else I haven't missed something and this seems like a good place to bring it to people's attention so that it can be corrected.
Comments
Why not simply apply Law 48 A?
Law 24 refers to card led or exposed during the auction, which should not be applicable in this case, since the auction has ended. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Law 54 E to read 'If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 48A applies'. Because a side only becomes a 'declaring side' after the end of the auction.
A side becomes presumed presumed declaring side after the end of the auction, but only actual declaring side after the auction period has ended. Law 24 would apply to a card led or exposed after the auction has ended, if the auction were to be re-opened during the clarification period. Also, a lead by presumed declarer could become a major penalty card if the auction is re-opened and they become defenders.
I do not disagree with your interpretation as it stands.
But, to play devil's advocate:
Once the auction has ended under the provision of Law 22 it has ended up to that point. It is not suspended, it has ended. Then the clarification period starts. During this period the auction is technically not 'on' and therefore Law 24 should not be applicable.
If the auction is to be re-opened then shouldn't the exposure of the card be deemed to be exposed before the 'start of the (re-opened) auction'? To be taken back by the player and Law 16D1 (see commentary on Law 24) applied?
Also, take a look at Law 39. It differentiates between a 'future declarer' and a 'defender' when a call is made after the final pass of the auction. Here too, the roles could be reversed if the auction is re-opened during the clarification period.
Yes I see your point. The laws are not clear as to whether the auction has been re-opened, originally presumed ended, or neither. As you say law 22 says the auction has ended. Nowhere does it say that the auction is reopened (i.e. active) if a change is allowed under 21b2, just that certain calls can be changed. I have always assumed that if those changed calls lead to there not being three consecutive passes, the auction is live again - but the laws do not say that (as far as I can see).
Wibble!