[blml] Amnesia

[Tim West-Meads]

Roger asked.

> What do you suggest in the case given the premise that the declaring 
> side makes an OLOOT:
> 
> W  N  E  S
> 
> P-  P- P- 1N
> 
> PPP
> 
> N pulls a card from his hand, says*, 'my lead?' and [immediately] 
> faces his card?  Let us say that W calls the TD.

How about applying the laws?

L41D:  After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his hand in front 
of him on the table, face up, sorted into suits, the cards in order of 
rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer, with trumps to 
dummy's right. Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. 

Followed by:

L45D:  If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did 
not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before 
each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw 
(without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was 
drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a 
card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2). 

Ok, there's a tiny discrepancy in tense but not enough to render the law 
unworkable.  The opening lead reverts to declarer's LHO - who now has 
the advantage of having seen dummy - well, tough titty to offenders, 
next time maybe N will be less careless.

I wouldn't mind if the next laws made clear that an OLOOT could not be 
made by declaring side - and I'm sure wording it wouldn't be too 
difficult.  Until then I happy that doing things this way ensures 
maximum protection to NOS from such shenanigans.

If some other TD feels it better to rule "no opening lead has been made" 
I'd not overrule him were I CTD, I believe there's just about enough 
ambiguity to allow that interpretation.

Tim