[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2019-October-22, 08:46, said:

If there can be no delay between leading face down and facing it, what makes the opening lead any different from any other lead? And what's the point of requiring the face-down lead in the first place?

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed delcarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

If the RA may specify that opening leads be made face up, then presumably the lawmakers do not think that the face down requirement is essential.

And then as often it seems written to confuse, with the clarification period that follows the auction but is part of the auction period and is only really defined in a law about the play period

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2019-October-22, 10:02, said:

If the RA may specify that opening leads be made face up, then presumably the lawmakers do not think that the face down requirement is essential.

I'm not really sure why that provision is in there. I think it may be for special conditions, such as online bridge where the concept of face-down doesn't really exist (similarly, the exception regarding consulting your own CC is typically only exercised for special types of games, such as individuals, beginner games, or games with a prescribed CC). I wonder if there's some significance to this exception being in a footnote -- all other RA elections are in the main text of the relevant laws.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2019-October-22, 08:46, said:

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed declarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

Unlike Boris Johnson, the declarer does not benefit at all from a delay, in that he is still able to ask any questions. It is implied by the lack of any delay being mentioned in the Laws that this is entirely at the discretion of the leader.

"I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating or not stating things for a reason" - Barmar

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2019-October-21, 15:34, said:

if you ask a question but don’t take your time to consider the answer, you give the impression that the answer is unimportant for your lead

Not so. The AC thought that the fact that SB asked the question and led immediately when he received his expected answer of "splinter" meant that he would have probably stopped and reconsidered his intended lead if he had received a different answer. And surely it does not matter who the dramatis personae are? As a fair TD you will treat every player equally, won't you?

[lamford]

 PeterAlan, on 2019-October-21, 16:26, said:

I submit that insta-facing of the opening lead does not permit these proper processes, and is therefore indeed an infraction as a violation of correct procedure [Law 74A3].

Except that it was not insta-facing of the opening lead. It was done after a question and answer, on the completely normal assumption that there were no more questions, and that the answer was correct. The ONLY infractors here were RR and ChCh. In fact the normal total time to lead after this auction would be quite a bit less than the time taken here, so your use of "insta-facing", with respect, is complete drivel and seems an attempt to target SB out of pre-conceived animosity, which appears to be a shared bias from other posters.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2019-October-23, 09:47, said:

"I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating or not stating things for a reason" - Barmar

So what is the reason for making the face-down lead in the first place, if it can be faced immediately?

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2019-October-23, 10:01, said:

So what is the reason for making the face-down lead in the first place, if it can be faced immediately?

The leader CAN wait to see if his partner has any questions if he wishes. But is not obliged to do so.

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2019-October-23, 10:01, said:

Except that it was not insta-facing of the opening lead. It was done after a question and answer, on the completely normal assumption that there were no more questions, and that the answer was correct. The ONLY infractors here were RR and ChCh. In fact the normal total time to lead after this auction would be quite a bit less than the time taken here, so your use of "insta-facing", with respect, is complete drivel and an attempt to target SB out of pre-conceived animosity, which appears to be a shared bias from other posters.

 lamford OP, on 2019-October-01, 06:15, said:

Before his opening lead, SB, West, asked about the alerted 4♣ bid and RR, North, replied "Splinter". ChCh, South, started to correct it to "Specifically... However, SB had, quick as a flash, tabled the three of hearts before ChCh could begin to say "Specifically"...

... and also before CC could have exercised his right to ask his own questions. Such action qualifies as "insta-facing" in my book.

By the way, you will see (if you read it more carefully) that my earlier post related solely to how certain actions might be viewed as relating to the laws, and did not include any reference to any persons, fictional or otherwise; I find it difficult to see how you find any animus to any such person in what I said.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2019-October-23, 10:01, said:

So what is the reason for making the face-down lead in the first place, if it can be faced immediately?

If RHO asks any question before LHO has selected his opening lead RHO is then automatically deemed to having given LHO UI which could be relevant for selecting the opening lead.

That is the fundamental reason for requiring the opening lead to be made face-down and only turned face-up after RHO has finished his questions (if any).

[ahydra]

 lamford, on 2019-October-23, 10:08, said:

The leader CAN wait to see if his partner has any questions if he wishes. But is not obliged to do so.

Law 41B said:

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call ...

The wording of Law 41B would suggest that (only) the leader's partner and the presumed declarer can decide if they want a review of the auction / an explanation of a call, or if they are happy to commence the play period. This Law does not make sense if - and indeed there is nothing in the Laws suggesting that this is the case - opening leader can deny them this right. Only once both the aforementioned players are happy to begin the play period should the opening lead be faced.

ahydra

[weejonnie]

 ahydra, on 2019-October-23, 17:24, said:

The wording of Law 41B would suggest that (only) the leader's partner and the presumed declarer can decide if they want a review of the auction / an explanation of a call, or if they are happy to commence the play period. This Law does not make sense if - and indeed there is nothing in the Laws suggesting that this is the case - opening leader can deny them this right. Only once both the aforementioned players are happy to begin the play period should the opening lead be faced.

ahydra

I agree with you there, but Law 41B extends the right to a review until you have played your first card (from dummy if declarer), so the opening leader cannot deny either player the right (whether intentionally or otherwise) to a review (with the correct mannerisms!).

[barmar]

 weejonnie, on 2019-October-24, 05:02, said:

I agree with you there, but Law 41B extends the right to a review until you have played your first card (from dummy if declarer), so the opening leader cannot deny either player the right (whether intentionally or otherwise) to a review (with the correct mannerisms!).

But asking during the play period may suggest that the question is influenced by the lead or dummy's cards. Asking before anything is faced allows you to avoid this UI to partner and AI to declarer.

While the Law doesn't proscribe a particular amount of time, since the players have these rights, the implication is that opening leader can't take them away.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2019-October-24, 09:22, said:

But asking during the play period may suggest that the question is influenced by the lead or dummy's cards. Asking before anything is faced allows you to avoid this UI to partner and AI to declarer.

While the Law doesn't proscribe a particular amount of time, since the players have these rights, the implication is that opening leader can't take them away.

Makes sense to me, like a lot of the recent comments. But surely the laws could be rewritten in a more linear and rational way to eliminate most of these doubts.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2019-October-24, 09:22, said:

But asking during the play period may suggest that the question is influenced by the lead or dummy's cards.

Generally speaking, I figure a request for a review of the bidding is influenced by the asker forgetting how the auction went.

[blackshoe]

The idea that because the laws say that a RA can in effect eliminate the Clarification period (by mandating that the opening lead be made face up) a player can choose to lead face up when the RA has not exercised that option is, it seems to me, ludicrous.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2019-October-24, 09:22, said:

While the Law doesn't proscribe a particular amount of time, since the players have these rights, the implication is that opening leader can't take them away.

I think you mean "prescribe", unless there is a different meaning to "proscribe" in the US. I prefer to assume that the Laws are written correctly, and if they required a pause, either the Laws or RA would have stated so. Until they do, SB will continue to insta-face, in full conformity with the Laws as written. As he says, "there is little point in MM asking any questions as the answer will just be pearls before swine".

And those who think that ChCh is somehow harmed by being unable to ask questions about the E-W passes should "get real".

[pran]

 barmar, on 2019-October-24, 09:22, said:

While the Law doesn't proscribe a particular amount of time, since the players have these rights, the implication is that opening leader can't take them away.

I consider it a grave violation of Law 74 to deliberately deprive another player of his rights while the opening lead is face down by facing this lead without any delay.
The fact that "the other player" is the opening leader's partner is in this respect irrelevant.

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2019-October-25, 06:49, said:

I prefer to assume that the Laws are written correctly ...

This is welcome.

 lamford, on 2019-October-25, 06:49, said:

... SB will continue to insta-face ...

As is your acceptance that the use of "insta-facing" is not, after all, "complete drivel".

 lamford, on 2019-October-25, 06:49, said:

And those who think that ChCh is somehow harmed by being unable to ask questions about the E-W passes should "get real".

He could well have wanted to ask what a double by E of the splinter bid would have meant (and I realise that it had not been explained as such during the auction). Yes, he can ask this later, but (where the RA follows the default face-down procedure) as I and others have said it's not for the opening leader to over-ride, in breach of Law 74A3, rights that declarer or leader's partner have under the procedures of Law 41B, which we are both taking as "written correctly".

[pran]

 PeterAlan, on 2019-October-25, 10:13, said:

He could well have wanted to ask what a double by E of the splinter bid would have meant (and I realise that it had not been explained as such during the auction). Yes, he can ask this later, but (where the RA follows the default face-down procedure) as I and others have said it's not for the opening leader to over-ride, in breach of Law 74A3, rights that declarer or leader's partner have under the procedures of Law 41B2, which we are both taking as "written correctly".

Don't overlook the fact that if a question during the clarification period reveals misinformation from the declaring side during the auction then the last defender to pass may have the right to withdraw his pass and replace it with a different call, after which the auction is resumed (Law 21B)

[PeterAlan]

 pran, on 2019-October-25, 11:03, said:

Don't overlook the fact that if a question during the clarification period reveals misinformation from the declaring side during the auction then the last defender to pass may have the right to withdraw his pass and replace it with a different call, after which the auction is resumed (Law 21B)

And there's also still the opportunity for opening leader's partner to summon the TD in order to correct an earlier misexplanation of theirs, but I wasn't looking to list every detail.