[kb49]

EBU

This incident happened recently in our club. The auction had finished and North was in a contract of 4♠. North and South then informed West that it was his turn to lead. He led the A♦. East then announced that it was his turn to lead. Law 47E states that if the player has been mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead then the card can be retracted without further rectification. East held two diamonds, k♦ and a small one. He led the k ♦ then the small one that was won by West's A♦. West continued with a diamond that was trumped by East. The contract went down. The problem we have is whether the AD was authorised information for East because they were not at fault. E/W much be implicated. They could quite easily have told N/S that they were wrong if they had been paying attention. The question is 'Was the lead out of turn of the A♦authorised information or not?'

[barmar]

It's authorized, according to Law 16C1:

Quote

For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.

When a player leads out of turn because an opponent told him it was his turn, he is considered to be the non-offending side. So when he withdraws the lead, the information that he holds the card is authorized to his partner.

16C2 then goes on to say that it's unauthorized to the opponents.

[aguahombre]

Adequate punishment for being stupid, and all legal. I love it.

[blackshoe]

Sometimes the lawmakers get it right.