[pescetom]

The auction has finished and East is declarer in 3NT. North leads face up a small heart, South immediately protests, North retracts the lead, which has only been seen by South. Director is called by South. How should he proceed?

[HardVector]

The infraction is because one defender's partner has unauthorized information. The opponents not seeing the card is immaterial, it is South who is not allowed to see. The card should be faced up on the table and East should be given the opportunity to make one of the 5 possible decisions they are authorized.

Btw, this was very honorable of South.

[blackshoe]

Quote

LAW 54 FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN
When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Also:
A. Declarer Spreads His Hand
After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes declarer.
B. Declarer Accepts Lead
When a defender faces the opening lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53, and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.
1. The second card to the trick is played from declarer’s hand.
2. If declarer plays the second card to the trick from dummy, dummy’s card may not be withdrawn except to correct a revoke.
C. Declarer Must Accept Lead
If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer.
D. Declarer Refuses Opening Lead
Declarer may require a defender to retract his faced opening lead out of turn. The withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card and Law 50D applies.
E. Opening Lead by Wrong Side
If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies.

Law 54C does not apply to this case, based on the information in the OP. Neither does Law 54E.

Director should probably tell declarer to make no choice until all the options have been explained (Law 9B2 says "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." Violation of this law should incur a PP more often than not).

If declarer rejects the lead, South will have restrictions:

Quote

Law 50D2: When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematurely, he is subject to rectification under Law 49). Declarer may choose:
(a) to require the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card, or to prohibit him from leading that suit for as long as he retains the lead (for two or more penalty cards, see Law 51); if declarer exercises either of these options, the card is no longer a penalty card and is picked up.
(b) not to require or prohibit a lead, in which case the defender may lead any card and the penalty card remains on the table as a penalty card. If this option is selected Law 50D continues to apply for as long as the penalty card remains.

[mycroft]

And specifically, it's a lead out of turn - even though no member of the non-offending side has seen it - because "it is possible for partner to see its face" and therefore "is deemed played to the current trick" (Law 45C1). Yes, it's out of turn. But this is a Played Card situation, not an Unauthorized Information one.

Okay, there is a small exception: if the resolution of the LooT leads to a penalty card, and that penalty card is returned to hand (50D2a as quoted by blackshoe above). A change to the Laws in 2017 removed the UI implications of a penalty card actually on the table (50E). Okay, once it's played, the "circumstances around the lead" is UI. I've never seen that be a problem.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all for the thorough replies. Isn't face to face fun

HardVector, on 2021-November-07, 17:02, said:

Btw, this was very honorable of South.

Not so much honourable as dutiful: I was South playing in a club where I am usually Director, so I had to set an example.

mycroft, on 2021-November-07, 19:30, said:

And specifically, it's a lead out of turn - even though no member of the non-offending side has seen it - because "it is possible for partner to see its face" and therefore "is deemed played to the current trick" (Law 45C1). Yes, it's out of turn. But this is a Played Card situation, not an Unauthorized Information one.

This is the key that I was looking for. Director was at a loss and I suggested it should be treated as LooT, but I was guiltily aware that Law 54 cites a faced opening lead and that I could not explain why this should be construed as faced.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-November-08, 11:43, said:

This is the key that I was looking for. Director was at a loss and I suggested it should be treated as LooT, but I was guiltily aware that Law 54 cites a faced opening lead and that I could not explain why this should be construed as faced.

Why shouldn't it be? I'm guessing "because neither opponent saw it." That doesn't matter. Face up is face up, faced is faced.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-November-08, 12:53, said:

Why shouldn't it be? I'm guessing "because neither opponent saw it." That doesn't matter. Face up is face up, faced is faced.

Well, that and a bit more: not only did they not see it, but it never reached the table, either way up.
But Law 45 is clear.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-November-08, 13:22, said:

Well, that and a bit more: not only did they not see it, but it never reached the table, either way up.But Law 45 is clear.

Indeed it is. South not only could have seen it, according to your OP he did see it.

You said "I could not explain why this should be construed as faced". I hope that having had a chance to review the law you now have no problem with this.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-November-08, 13:41, said:

You said "I could not explain why this should be construed as faced". I hope that having had a chance to review the law you now have no problem with this.

It helps to hear other people say that is how the law is meant to be interpreted: North is "playing to current trick" under Law 45, even though nobody has made a face down opening lead which seems to be the only way to end the clarification period and commence play according to law 41.
I agree that any other interpretation would be paradoxical: at the same time, it could be written more clearly.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-November-08, 15:48, said:

It helps to hear other people say that is how the law is meant to be interpreted: North is "playing to current trick" under Law 45, even though nobody has made a face down opening lead which seems to be the only way to end the clarification period and commence play according to law 41.
I agree that any other interpretation would be paradoxical: at the same time, it could be written more clearly.

My understanding is that if the opening lead is made face up, there is no clarification period, and "the play period begins irrevocably" (last part of the first sentence in 41C). You're right though, it could be written more clearly.

Interestingly, the opening leader, says the law, "makes the opening lead face down". The Introduction to the laws says of this that it "establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized". Not that TDs give PPs anyway, but...

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-November-08, 18:05, said:

My understanding is that if the opening lead is made face up, there is no clarification period, and "the play period begins irrevocably" (last part of the first sentence in 41C). You're right though, it could be written more clearly.

It's already odd that the Auction Period is defined by a self-standing law (Law 17) whereas the Play Period is only defined in Definitions (and sputters out with Law 79A, although it continues until the next board is started). Also that the Clarification Period which is considered part of the Auction Period is actually regulated by Law 41 which is nominally already about play.
Law 17D1 is actually more precise than Law 41C about what ends the Auction Period and starts the Play Period: it says "when...either defender faces an opening lead", which helps answer this thread (although perhaps "when either defender plays to the first trick (see Law 41 for correct procedure)" would be even more precise and better linked to Law 45).

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-November-09, 12:01, said:

It's already odd that the Auction Period is defined by a self-standing law (Law 17) whereas the Play Period is only defined in Definitions (and sputters out with Law 79A, although it continues until the next board is started). Also that the Clarification Period which is considered part of the Auction Period is actually regulated by Law 41 which is nominally already about play.
Law 17D1 is actually more precise than Law 41C about what ends the Auction Period and starts the Play Period: it says "when...either defender faces an opening lead", which helps answer this thread (although perhaps "when either defender plays to the first trick (see Law 41 for correct procedure)" would be even more precise and better linked to Law 45).

The laws could do with a reorganization. Unfortunately that idea seems to scare some people.