Y leads out of turn. B (Y's adversary) says to his partner, "Shall we call a suit or not?" B's partner gives no answer. Is the asking the question a consultation within the meaning of Law 84, although no answer is made to it?
Decision—Yes. It is the very question Law 84 is framed to prevent. B by the question shows that he is in doubt as to the policy of calling a suit, and thus affords information he has no right to give. Further than this, a reply by word of mouth is not necessary to constitute a consultation. Silence is an answer. The knowledge that a partner is indifferent may convey information that B has no right to extract.
Note. The usual formula is "Will you exact the penalty, or shall I?" This question does not bring the player under the operation of Law 84.
CASE XI.
A leads and the other three players follow suit. A plays another card (it not being his lead) and proceeds to gather the five cards into one trick. On being told of it, A explains that his attention has been diverted, and that he thought he had not played to the trick. The adversaries claim to be entitled to the penalties for leading out of turn, on the ground that the penalty should depend, not on the actual intention of the player, but on his possible intention.
Decision—A has not led out of turn; he has merely exposed a card. The abstract principle pleaded by the adversaries is quite sound, but it does not apply to this case. A's word must be taken as correctly representing the fact that he played a second time to one trick.