Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Sun Aug 4 17:25:02 CEST 2013

Steve Willner 
> On 2013-08-02 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote:
> > IMO there is no such thing as an opening lead out of turn once another
> > opening lead has been made whether in turn or out of turn. The "second
> > OLOOT" is simply a card exposed by a defender to be treated under Law
> I don't think the Laws are clear on this point.  I hate it that intent
matters, but
> it does seem that the first card played to a trick is a lead.
[Sven Pran] 
The first card led to a trick is indeed (always) a lead.
The first card led to the very first trick is the opening lead if it made by
a defender.
(If it is made by presumed declarer or dummy it is a card exposed during the
auction and if it is made by presumed declarer's RHO it is an opening lead
out of turn.)
> In general, isn't declarer allowed to accept any LOOT by a defender?
> Why should East's play be different?  If dummy hasn't come down, I don't
> any reason not to give declarer all the options.
[Sven Pran] 
Presumed declarer has more options on an OLOOT than he has on an ordinary
lead by the wrong defender. Once he has executed his selected option after
an OLOOT (by his RHO) he is no longer presumed declarer, he is the declarer.
As declarer he may not choose to have his partner become the declarer in
case of a second lead out of turn. 
> But once again, I don't see anything specific in the Laws either way.
> > Declarer selects his option on penalty cards at the time offender's
> > partner has or obtains the lead if the offender still has penalty
> > card(s) at this time. The choice takes effect on that lead, not on some
> lead.
> If East's play is ruled an opening lead OOT, and declarer accepts it, it
seems to
> me West has "lost the lead" for purposes of L50D2a.
[Sven Pran] 
And if declarer does not accept it he (irrevocably) has the opening lead
subject to the rectification selected by (now) declarer (no longer presumed

More information about the Blml mailing list