Law 58A - How simultaneous is simultaneous?

West won the previous trick and is looking at their hand to lead to the next one. East makes a lead face up and no one notices or makes a remark about it being a lead out of turn. West then (say several seconds later but no one really knows!! including East) faces their intended lead and the irregularity is noticed and the director called.

Should Law 58A be followed and East's faced card treated as a major penalty card and West's card treated as the lead card to the next trick, or should declarer be offered Law 57 options with West's card treated as a major penalty card? If Declarer specifies option 57A4 and that West's intended lead should not be made does West then have the opportunity to place the intended lead card (now major penalty card) back in their hand and East warned that the position of that card is UI to him etc.?



  • It certainly doesn't sound simultaneous from the description and it doesn't seem to be the situation described by Law 57. I think it's just a lead out of turn by East and declarer should be given the opportunity to accept it, which might well create an unestablished revoke - and attendant penalty card provisions - in West.

  • Thank you Gordon. Weirdly both led a low diamond.

    How about the situation where no one knows which bid was first, do we treat them as "simultaneous"? How about law 57A4 and whether the penalty card can be picked up and replaced in hand?


  • I think if no-one knows which was first, then they should be treated as simultaneous, but that was not how I read the original post - it seemed to me to be saying which one was first, but no-one knew by how much it was first.

  • What the law seeks to avoid is East making an action (for instance, in rotation) after West has a made an action (out of rotation) and having East's action treated as legal before addressing West's irregularity. If no one sees the legal action happening after the illegal action, it is safe to treat the legal action as happening first.

  • Thank you both for the answers, it is a help. Yes Gordon I did phrase the original oddly and you did answer that question. My second was an attempt to find out what the limit would be and I think I know now how it should be treated. By the way this happened three times the other night, one pair did it twice to the same opponents.

    Best wishes

Sign In or Register to comment.