[blml] lead penalties

[David Burn]

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Rocafort
Sent: 20 September 2007 13:28
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blml] lead penalties

David Burn a écrit :

[snip]

> AG : I'm a bit embarrassed about the "or both" part. The French 
> version of the law explicitly says "the specified suit (or one of the 
> specified suits)", whence no combined prohibition is possible.
> 
>  
> 
> DB: Then the French version of the law is a correct translation of the 
> English version of the law,
agreed

> neither of which (as I have explained) is a correct translation of the 
> intention of the lawmakers.

[JPR]

how are you so certain of the intention?
after all, the present formulation might be useful to prevent insoluble
situations. suppose the withdrawn call describes 5 cards in diamonds and
spades, and singleton or void in clubs and hearts. all 4 suits are
specified. what if declarer prohibits offender's partner lead in every
specified suit?

Oh, one can never be sure of anything in this vale of tears. It may indeed
be that the lawmakers took pains to avoid a situation in which a player
could in theory ban an opponent from leading anything at all.

But I am prepared to wager that the lawmakers would rather prevent this kind
of thing. You, East, hold:

63  4  A10987  A10987

South opens one heart and North raises to six hearts. What call do you make?

Why, if Law 26 is to be interpreted as written, you bid 2NT for the minors,
explaining that you thought North had bid 2H rather than 6H. It will not do
declarer much good to be able to forbid a diamond lead if he cannot also
forbid a club lead.

David Burn
London, England