[blml] Lead penalty

[David Burn]

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of Herman De Wael
Sent: 20 September 2007 10:56
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blml] Lead penalty


[JPR]

I am not sure your formulation is as clear as you say. As I understand 
L26A, "or" between "spade" and "diamond" is an exclusive or. Offender's 
partner may be forbidden to lead a spade or forbidden to lead a 
diamond but not forbidden to lead both a spade and a diamond. at least 
everybody will agree he may not be forced to lead both a spade and a 
diamond!
 
[HDW]

I was momentarily distracted, so I did not react to John's original, 
which contains a mistake!

L26A does apply to more than one suit! It says so!
So if 4D shows spades and (singleton) diamond, there is a L26A lead 
penalty on those two suits. That means that one can prohibit spades, 
diamonds, or both, but not hearts or clubs. it also means one can 
demand spades or diamonds. The law does not say that one can or cannot 
demand both spades and diamonds, because that would be impossible anyway.

Some posts have gotten this wrong, I seem to gather.

[DALB]

The Law says:

If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and [...]

If that suit was not specified in the legal auction by the same player,
then declarer may (penalty) either require the offender's partner to lead
the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to
lead,
including the opening lead, or prohibit offender's partner from leading
the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to
lead,
including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long as
offender's partner retains the lead.

The words "prohibit offender's partner from leading the specified suit (or
one particular specified suit)" mean that if East has specified spades and
diamonds, declarer may prohibit West from leading a spade, or prohibit West
from leading a diamond, but he may not prohibit West from leading either a
spade or a diamond.

No doubt that is not what they are intended to mean, but that is what they
mean. The words "the specified suit" deal with the case where only one suit
is specified; the words "or one particular specified suit" deal with the
case where more than one suit is specified, and indicate clearly that
declarer may prohibit one suit, but not more than one.

I hope that in the next revision of the Laws, the relevant passage will be
amended to reflect the actual intent. After all, it would be somewhat
perverse if declarer could in effect say to West "don't cash a spade trick"
whereupon West said "all right then, I'll give partner a diamond ruff
instead". In the meantime, should this somewhat unlikely scenario occur at
the table, I would have no difficulty with the notion that declarer should
in fact be permitted to prohibit West from leading a spade and prohibit West
from leading a diamond.

An alternative to the uncouth wording I suggested in an earlier post occurs
to me:

If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and [...]

If any suit specified by the withdrawn call was not specified in the legal
auction by the same player, then declarer may (penalty):

Require the offender's partner to lead a particular one of such suits* at
his first turn to lead, including the opening lead; or 

Prohibit offender's partner from leading any such suit at his first turn to
lead, including the opening lead, such prohibition to continue for as long
as offender's partner retains the lead.

*This wording is necessary, because the phrase "North can tell West to lead
a heart or a club" is ambiguous: it could mean either 

"North can tell West to lead a heart, or North can tell West to lead a club,
at North's discretion"; or 

"North can tell West to lead a heart or a club, but West has discretion over
which of those suits he leads". Wherefore the words "require the offender's
partner to lead one such suit" would not alone suffice.

David Burn
London, England