[blml] E = Mpc cubed

[Peter Eidt]

Hi Richard,

nice construction ;-)

But no, these two cases are by far not identical
- as you know.

In the case with the double-penalty-cards
the defender on turn is in a "double-squeeze" of
a multiple lead-restriction, whereas in the
"genuine" case of an opposite penalty card 
he is "really free" to lead, if declarer chooses
not to choose a restriction.

Peter


From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> Vulnerable: North-South
> Contract:   Five Clubs redoubled
> Declarer:   South
> 
>             2
>             ---
>             2
>             A
> ---                      A
> ---                      ---
> K                        AQ
> K2                       ---
>             ---
>             ---
>             3
>             QJ
> 
> In this three-card endgame, West is on
> lead and South needs two of the last
> three tricks to make their redoubled
> contract.
> 
> However...
> 
> The ace, king and queen of diamonds
> are all major penalty cards.
> 
> Law 50D1:
> 
> "A major penalty card must be played
> at the first legal opportunity ...
> The obligation ... to comply with a
> lead or play penalty, takes precedence
> over the obligation to play a major
> penalty card ..."
> 
> Therefore, if declarer wishes,
> declarer could prohibit West from
> leading their king of diamonds for as
> long as West retains the lead due to
> East also holding diamond penalty
> cards.
> 
> However, suppose that declarer does
> want West to immediately lead their
> king of diamonds, would this law be
> applicable?
> 
> Law 51B1(a):
> 
> "When a defender has two or more
> penalty cards in one suit, and
> declarer requires the defender's
> partner to lead that suit, the cards
> of that suit are no longer penalty
> cards and are picked up; the defender
> may make any legal play to the trick."
> 
> Of course, the only way that 5Cxx can
> be made is if West leads the king of
> diamonds, East overtakes with the ace
> of diamonds, then East continues with
> the queen of diamonds - the contract
> makes on a smother play.
> 
> Can this smother play be achieved by
> declarer applying this law?
> 
> Law 50D2(b):
> 
> "When a defender has the lead while
> his partner has a major penalty
> card, he may not lead until
> declarer has stated which of the
> options below is selected ...
> Declarer may choose:
> ...
> not to require or prohibit a lead,
> in which case the defender may lead
> any card; the penalty card remains
> a penalty card."
> 
> That is, can declarer simply announce
> that declarer is choosing for East's
> AQ of diamonds to remain major
> penalty cards, and allowing West to
> make any legal play?  If so, West's
> only legal play (by the first phrase
> of Law 50D1) is the king of diamonds.
> 
> But the choice by declarer under Law
> 50D2(b) is identical to the choice
> by declarer under Law 51B1(a); in
> both cases declarer is requiring
> West to lead the king of diamonds.
> 
> However, the two identical choices
> by declarer lead to different
> outcomes; applying one Law sees the
> AQ of diamonds remain penalty cards,
> while applying another Law sees the
> AQ of diamonds cease to be penalty
> cards and picked up.
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> National Training Branch
> 02 6225 6285
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>