[blml] L55A ambiguity?

[David Burn]

[TNLB L55A]

If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either defender
may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after
misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the
option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail.

[Robert Geller]

Let's take a concrete example.  South is the declarer, and he has the lead,
but he calls for a card from dummy (North). East says he wants to accept the
LOOT, but West says he wants to refuse it ... My question is, which defender
(E or W) is the "player next in turn" specified in L55A?

[DALB]

If the lead comes from North and North is the player out of turn, then South
is the player in turn and the player next in turn is West. Of course, that's
not what the lawmakers want - they want East to be able just to play to the
trick without consulting West. The law isn't ambiguous; it's just wrong.

Callaghan and I have this habit: when declarer leads from the wrong hand,
the player to the left of the wrong hand will either play to the trick or
pause to allow partner to require declarer to lead from the correct hand.
Now, is it authorised information to me that Brian doesn't want declarer to
lead from the correct hand? Is it authorised information to him that I do
want declarer to lead from the wrong hand, if I follow in tempo to the
trick? (of course, he may have to guess whether I actually want this or
whether I just haven't noticed that declarer has led from the wrong hand).
Is my pause a "demonstrable bridge reason" for not following in tempo to the
lead from the wrong hand, if Brian says nothing and I then play to the
trick? Or have we just been cheating these past twenty years?

David Burn
London, England