[BLML] Law 22B vs. 41C

agot agot at ulb.ac.be
Thu Oct 15 18:46:21 CEST 2015


Le 15.10.2015 17:02, Volker Walther a écrit :
> Did we have that before? I can not find it.
> 
> South became declarer, but there was a wrong explanation so he called
> the TD. While TD is asking what had happened,  West faces his opening 
> lead.
> 
> Should we apply  law 24B?
> 
> According to 22B facing the opening lead ends the auction period.
> 
> According to 41C the opening lead has to be faced after the
> Clarification Period, which is part of the Auction Period.

There is no contradiction here. After three consecutive passes in 
rotation, there is a clarification period, then the lead is placed face 
down, then there is another clarificaiton period (so that leader's 
partner may ask in tempore non suspecto), there the opening lead is 
revealed, and this is the last event in the auction period.

So, in facing one's lead before the (first or second) clarification 
period has ended, West has committed an irregularity. His card becomes a 
LOOT, and he will have to lead it. But the auction period hasn't ended, 
because no *legal* lead has been made.
Most probably West will not suffer from that. But if the TD decides to 
walk the cat back because of the wrong explanation, and allows N/S to 
change their bid, then there is a MPC on the table. We know how to deal 
with this.
Else, the LOOT in placed aside, and South may ask for any clarification 
he wants.

There is a remote possibility of his haste carrying UI that he doesn't 
want partner to know what he wants to know.



Best regards

   Alain


More information about the Blml mailing list