[polecat69]

The following occurred at a local bridge club in England.
Declarer's LHO won a trick and then led to the next trick which was won by declarer.
Then declarer's LHO placed a card on the table, as he would have done if he had won the previous trick.
When the Director was called, he treated the situation as a lead out of turn.
But Law 56, Defender's Lead Out of Turn merely refers to Law 54D. Law 54 is Faced Opening Lead Out Of Turn. Clearly this wasn't an opening lead.
Therefore should this have been treated under Law 49 Exposure of a Defender's Cards?
Or under a different Law? Or was the Director's ruling correct?

[Lanor Fow]

It depends on the intention of the defender. If the intention was to lead, then the director got it correct. As you say law 56 refers to law 54D, whilst 54 is about opening leads out of turn, the specific part refered to can be applied to a non opening lead, as is obvoiusly the intention. As such the card becomes a major penalty card.

Note also thet law 53 also applies, decalarer is allowed to accept the lead.

If the intention wasn't to lead the card, then it's treated as an exposed card, and depending on the cirucmstances may become a major or minor penalty card.

[pran]

TD was correct in the effect that declarer may accept the exposure of a card by West as a lead.

An examination of the relevant laws will reveal that if declarer does not accept it as a lead then the card will end up as a major penalty card. It does not matter exactly which law TD applies (§§ 49 or 56), the result is the same.

[Zelandakh]

There are 3 ways of dealing with this depending on what the player was attempting to do. If they were playing a card to the (completed) trick then it becomes a penalty card under 45E1. If it was led to the next trick 56 applies, which re-directs to 54D (as the TD ruled). Finally, if the card was not played but simply exposed then we fall back to 49, which again makes it a penalty card. In other words, if it was a lead then declarer has the option to accept it. If declarer does not accept it, or if it was not a lead, then it is a penalty card and play continues.

As described, it sounds like the ruling was correct.

[blackshoe]

It seems the OP's confusion arose because Law 54 seems to be about opening leads, and this wasn't one. What has actually happened in the laws is that the lawmakers decided that the old Law 56 was redundant, having the same effect as 54D, so they replaced 56 with a pointer to 54D. They probably might just as well have left 56 in, and put the pointer in 54D.