[biggerclub]

The facts are not in dispute.

LHO opens 1C (perhaps after I passed or perhaps not -- can't remember who dealt). Partner passes. RHO responds 1D. I pass. LHO rebids 2C. Partner passes. RHO bids 6NT and all pass.

Fearing bunches and bunches of running minor suits, I immediately place the AH face down on the table. Before asking me, "Any questions?" partner drops his lead of the 6h face up.

Director is called and I am desperately trying to make the point that my lead was on the table before partner's lead, out of turn or otherwise. Director instructs me to return my lead to my hand and proceeds to give RHO (Declarer) all of his usual options for a lead out of turn.

At the end of which, RHO elects to ban a heart lead. Then chalks up 13 running tricks (with the help of my Spade lead).

After we leave the table, I complain to partner that I thought the ruling was wrong. Partner calls the director after the game . . . who now agrees with me and adjusts the score (even though no one else but me saw that my lead was indeed the AH).

I am not sure. Someone on the internet to whom the question was posed, supported the director's original ruling, citing Law 54. I don't see that Law 54 resolves this -- it only states that RHO has the option to accept Partner's lead, thereby barring mine. But of course, he doesn't want to accept that lead through his K8 of hearts.

I don't know. Do you?

Here is a link to the Laws, if that helps.

[steve2005]

when you say partner dropped card on table. Did you mean it was accidental or was he meaning it as a lead? not sure it matters just curious.

seems that the opening lead is placed faced down, so would be considered "played" and your partner played out of turn not lead out of turn.

not a director, just trying common sense

[biggerclub]

steve2005, on 2014-July-18, 19:41, said:

when you say partner dropped card on table. Did you mean it was accidental or was he meaning it as a lead? not sure it matters just curious.

seems that the opening lead is placed faced down, so would be considered "played" and your partner played out of turn not lead out of turn.

not a director, just trying common sense

Edited to make clear that partner intended to lead.

[PeterAlan]

The ruling seems correct:

• Your partner has made a faced opening lead out of turn (you've said that it was an intentional lead and not, for example, a dropped card) at the same time as your unfaced lead
  
• Your face down lead is required to be retracted (first sentence of Law 54)
  
• Declarer then has the usual 5 options after an opening lead out of turn. Declarer may refuse to accept the lead (Law 54D), in which case the withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card, Law 50D applies, and the declarer may inter alia forbid the lead of a ♥ by you.

Since you ask, this belongs better in the Simple Rulings forum under the International Bridge Laws Forum section towards the bottom of the forum homepage.

[blackshoe]

Peter has it right, in all respects. One point not covered, though it probably makes no difference: when declarer elects to prohibit the lead of a heart, the ♥6 is no longer a penalty card, and OP's partner should have been instructed to put it back in his hand.

[biggerclub]

PeterAlan, on 2014-July-18, 21:19, said:

The ruling seems correct:

• Your partner has made a faced opening lead out of turn (you've said that it was an intentional lead and not, for example, a dropped card) at the same time as your unfaced lead
  
• Your face down lead is required to be retracted (first sentence of Law 54)
  
• Declarer then has the usual 5 options after an opening lead out of turn. Declarer may refuse to accept the lead (Law 54D), in which case the withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card, Law 50D applies, and the declarer may inter alia forbid the lead of a ♥ by you.

Since you ask, this belongs better in the Simple Rulings forum under the International Bridge Laws Forum section towards the bottom of the forum homepage.

Just a clarification . . . in case it isn't clear from my OP. I clearly made the face down lead first. Then before anything else happened, partner made his face up lead. Because your post says "at the same time" which is not what happened exactly.

For purposes of bridge laws, it may be simultaneous, given that my lead had not yet been faced. Just want to be clear about what happened.

[campboy]

Law 54 doesn't require the two things to be simultaneous, just that they both happened. The point is that a face-down opening lead has not been played. This is why it doesn't end the auction period (law 22B), but your partner's lead does and becomes the (OOT) opening lead.

[shyams]

Continuation question, if I may.

Let's say that instead of leading the ♥A face down, the OP says "My lead, right?" before putting the card face down. In essence it is a true & innocuous question, and I guess gets used often enough in club sessions. Here it may also have an added benefit of preventing OP's partner from doing what he/she did.

Is that allowed?

[ArtK78]

shyams, on 2014-July-19, 04:12, said:

Continuation question, if I may.

Let's say that instead of leading the ♥A face down, the OP says "My lead, right?" before putting the card face down. In essence it is a true & innocuous question, and I guess gets used often enough in club sessions. Here it may also have an added benefit of preventing OP's partner from doing what he/she did.

Is that allowed?

Law 20 C.1. gives either defender the right to ask if it is his or her opening lead after the auction has ended.

[biggerclub]

So I agree with the discussion here, but I do have a suggestion for the ACBL Laws committee. Below is an email that I sent to my partner:

Quote

I am pretty sure that XXXXXXX got it right at the table the first time. Here is a link to the relevant section of the Laws for reference.

1) Law 54 is clear that "When an opening lead is faced out of of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted." (First sentence)
2) Under 54D, declarer may refuse the lead and Law 56 applies.
3) Under 56, When declarer refuses lead the card led becomes a major penalty card and Law 50D applies.
4) Under Law 50D(2)(a) Declarer may forbid the lead of the suit of the penalty card for as long as the partner of the player who has the penalty card holds the lead (in which case the penalty card is returned to the defender's hand).

The only ambiguity that remains for me is that the first sentence of Law 54 could say "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads or has led face down, . . . . " I am convinced that the first sentence to Law 54 still applies to our situation despite this ambiguity.

I think we should make sure that a corrected corrected score is issued.

[RMB1]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-19, 12:31, said:

So I agree with the discussion here, but I do have a suggestion for the ACBL Laws committee. Below is an email that I sent to my partner:

Quote

... "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads or has led face down ..." ...

+1

(is this the right forum?)
There is Laws and Rulings or even Changing Laws & Regulations

[blackshoe]

Yes, the Laws forums would be a better place for this. Perhaps someone with the power to move things from here will do so.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-19, 19:45, said:

Yes, the Laws forums would be a better place for this. Perhaps someone with the power to move things from here will do so.

I've seen 3 different suggestions for where it belongs. Let me know where you want it and I'll move it.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2014-July-20, 02:03, said:

I've seen 3 different suggestions for where it belongs.

I only mentioned Changing Laws & Regulation because the OP was now suggesting a rewording of a law.

[biggerclub]

I have changed my mind after having been pointed to Law 58 by our club's owner, manager and lead director:

A. Simultaneous Plays by Two Players
A lead or play made simultaneously with another player's legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it.

He "ruled" (actually explained to me) that the two leads were simultaneous . . . and that the true timing actually doesn't matter that much so long as they are nearly simultaneous.

[barmar]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-21, 18:22, said:

and that the true timing actually doesn't matter that much so long as they are nearly simultaneous.

That's good, because Special Relativity says that simultaneity cannot be determined objectively.