[LH2650]

Opening leader places a card face down on the table, changes his mind, and puts a second card face up on the table. At that point, you are called...

[blackshoe]

I would start with Law 41A: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Laws 47E and 54); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender’s hand.

This law says that the opening lead is made face down, which the player did. Then he withdrew it, in violation of this law, which says he may not do that without instruction from the Director. Per the introduction to the laws, "may not" is the second strongest prohibition, and should incur a procedural penalty more often than not. So unless I can see a very good reason not to give one, I do give one.

Next, I would invoke Law 16: any inferences drawn from partner's withdrawal of his original lead are authorized to declarer, and unauthorized to his partner, who may make no play that is suggested over another logical alternative play, throughout the play of the hand.

Then, per Law 41C: Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread (but see Law 54A for a faced opening lead out of turn). After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled I would rule that the play period has begun and dummy should be spread, and then play continues. Also, leader by his action has illegally eliminated the Clarification Period from the hand. There is no penalty for this, except that if his partner had a question that might have led to the auction being reopened, the leader has jeopardized his side's right to a score adjustment if MI by the declaring side comes to light. Leader's partner, if he does have questions, cannot ask them until after declarer plays from dummy.

[BudH]

I'll assume the original face down lead card was returned to hand and not easily determined by the Director.

When I first read the original poster's description, my first thought was original lead stands and must be faced, second card is a major penalty card. But it may not be easy to determine the original lead card if offender is not cooperative!

As for the procedural penalty, Ed is probably correct due to the "may not" phrase, and I think I give much more procedural penalties than most (club) directors (although I often make them very small - the key is for players by word of mouth to know a PP was assessed and why for a learning opportunity), but I doubt I'd consider giving the PP on this one.

[pescetom]

Did anything happen between the time when the first card was lead face down and the time when it was retracted?
Did the auction or any previous explanation suggest a logical alternative to the lead that was chosen?

[sfi]

BudH, on 2018-April-07, 13:56, said:

I'll assume the original face down lead card was returned to hand and not easily determined by the Director.

When I first read the original poster's description, my first thought was original lead stands and must be faced, second card is a major penalty card. But it may not be easy to determine the original lead card if offender is not cooperative!

This is the way I was planning to go. If they are not cooperative, I will hand out procedural penalties fairly quickly.

I don't read Law 41A the same way as blackshoe does. To me it says that the face down card is the lead. Any other faced cards are treated as penalty cards. The construction "may be withdrawn only ..." is more equivalent to "must not be withdrawn unless ..." than "may not be withdrawn unless ...".

So opening leader puts their original lead on the table and the other one is a major penalty card. Opening leader gets a reminder about proper procedure and away we go. Yes, the opening leader may choose to indicate the wrong card as the original lead, but there is not much I can do about that. They still have a major penalty card on the table, so they are unlikely to benefit from the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2018-April-07, 16:42, said:

I don't read Law 41A the same way as blackshoe does. To me it says that the face down card is the lead. Any other faced cards are treated as penalty cards. The construction "may be withdrawn only ..." is more equivalent to "must not be withdrawn unless ..." than "may not be withdrawn unless ...".

I don't think I said that the face down lead was not the lead. And I agree that it is.

As for "more equivalent…" you'll have to explain that to me.

sfi, on 2018-April-07, 16:42, said:

So opening leader puts their original lead on the table and the other one is a major penalty card. Opening leader gets a reminder about proper procedure and away we go. Yes, the opening leader may choose to indicate the wrong card as the original lead, but there is not much I can do about that. They still have a major penalty card on the table, so they are unlikely to benefit from the irregularity.

This is not an unreasonable ruling. In fact, it's probably better than mine.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2018-April-07, 18:56, said:

I don't think I said that the face down lead was not the lead. And I agree that it is.

As for "more equivalent…" you'll have to explain that to me.

"more equivalent to" = "its meaning is closer to"

If you allow them to change the lead to the face up card, you need a legal reason to do so. My argument was that Law 41A does not provide that reason. You (as director) have not instructed them to do so - and if you had, the other card would not be a penalty card. So if you permit the change, then the only other thing I can see is that the ruling is that the face down lead was not actually a played card. That is fine according to Law 45 (Card Played), but you still have the prohibition in 41A.

[blackshoe]

Given that "must not" is the strongest prohibition in the laws, and that "may not" is just short of "must not" (see the introduction to the laws) I don't see that the distinction is all that significant. But let's start at the beginning: Law 41 says "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Laws 47E and 54);" So. Law 47E deals with changes of play based on MI - that does not apply here. Law 54 has to do with a faced opening lead out of turn. I suppose that at first glance one might try to apply this law, but this law does not envision what actually happened at the table, so I reject that. What about other infractions? Well, the infraction here happened after (or perhaps as) the face down lead was withdrawn, and the director was not involved at that point. So I would say this means that not only can the player not withdraw the face down lead and replace it with another (face down or face up) on his own, the director can't instruct him to do so just because he already did. So it seems to me there is no legal reason to allow the change of lead.

The face down lead is, imo, a played card. Why? Law 45A, which deals with how cards are played from a closed hand, says "Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing¹² it on the table immediately before him." The footnote says "¹² The opening lead is first made face down unless the Regulating Authority directs otherwise."

[weejonnie]

I do agree that

1) Unless there is any valid reason (MI for example), the first card has been led. (as per Blackshoe)

2) Since the first card has been led, the second card is NOT a lead to the first trick. Thus it becomes a penalty card (fifth card to the trick) - unless anyone wants to declare it as a lead to the 2nd trick - in which case law 57 applies.

LAW 57 - PREMATURE LEAD OR PLAY

A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a
major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may:

1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or
2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or
3. require offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer, or
4. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.