lead restrictions

[bali 2]

S is declarer in 3NT, West to lead.

West is subject to lead restrictions under law 26B and East has a Heart as M.P.C. on the table.

Is South allowed to ignore the lead restrictions and select one option from the MPC, demanding a Heart lead ?

If the answer is Yes and West leads the H Ace making the trick, are the options of 26 B still available to declarer or not ? :lol:

 

Many thanks in advance

Al. Ohana

[gordontd]

The lead restrictions under L26B apply at West's first turn to lead. The lead options relating to East's penalty card apply for as long as it is a penalty card.

 

[edited to spoil Bluejak's fun :lol: ]

Edited November 16, 2009 by gordontd

[pran]

S is declarer in 3NT, West to lead.

West is subject to lead restrictions under law 26B and East has a Heart as M.P.C. on the table.

  Is South allowed to ignore the lead restrictions and select one option from the MPC,  demanding  a Heart lead ?

Yes

   If the answer is Yes and West leads the H Ace making the trick, are the options of 26 B still available to declarer or not ? :lol:

No (It is no longer his first time to lead)

 

The only intriguing question from this situation is if South selects his L26B option to forbid a heart lead from West. Does this simultaneously count that South uses his L50D2a option to forbid a lead in the suit of the MPC? Personally I believe the answer to this question must be yes, the card is no longer a penalty card and is picked up.

[mjj29]

S is declarer in 3NT, West to lead.

West is subject to lead restrictions under law 26B and East has a Heart as M.P.C. on the table.

  Is South allowed to ignore the lead restrictions and select one option from the MPC,  demanding  a Heart lead ?

Yes

   If the answer is Yes and West leads the H Ace making the trick, are the options of 26 B still available to declarer or not ? ;)

No (It is no longer his first time to lead)

What about if he uses his 26B right to forbid a spade lead and his MPC right to require a heart lead, then after cashing the Ace of hearts, he remains on lead so the forbidding of a spade lead still applies?

[bluejak]

The lead restrictions under L26B apply at West's first turn to bid.

Very fine Law. <giggle>

[iviehoff]

What about if he uses his 26B right to forbid a spade lead and his MPC right to require a heart lead, then after cashing the Ace of hearts, he remains on lead so the forbidding of a spade lead still applies?

Any lead restriction imposed either under 26B or under 50D2a (penalty card) persists as long as the player retains the lead.

 

So if the HA were not a singleton, he would be required to lead another heart anyway under 50D2a. The situation you mention arises when the HA is a singleton.

 

Another interesting situation would be if the defender had no hearts in the first place, so the 50D2a requirement to lead a heart could not be complied with.

 

One might think it fussy to apply both a 26B requirement not to lead a spade at the same time as as a 50D2a requirement to lead a heart, but it can make a difference.

 

Sven says, fairly persuasively I think, that if you apply a 26B restriction, and it applies to the suit of the penalty card, then you have satisfied the requirements of 50D2a allowing the penalty card can be picked up. But equally if you apply a 26B restriction that couldn't be a 50D2a restriction, then the requirements allowing the penalty card to be picked up haven't been satisfied. So declarer can get two bites of the cherry, as it were, in some circumstances.

[Grazy69]

Is the TD at the table .. if not why not?

 

If he is the TD should explain both alternatives L26 and L50 to declarer.

The laws don't seem to indicate that either Law takes precedence.

If L26 .. what was the withdrawn call ? It surely would make a difference to declarer's choice

[campboy]

What about if he uses his 26B right to forbid a spade lead and his MPC right to require a heart lead, then after cashing the Ace of hearts, he remains on lead so the forbidding of a spade lead still applies?

Any lead restriction imposed either under 26B or under 50D2a (penalty card) persists as long as the player retains the lead.

 

So if the HA were not a singleton, he would be required to lead another heart anyway under 50D2a. The situation you mention arises when the HA is a singleton.

The wording of 50D2a (or rather the punctuation) makes it clear that a prohibition of a suit applies for as long as that player is on lead, but a requirement to lead the suit doesn't.

[bluejak]

The laws don't seem to indicate that either Law takes precedence.

In general, the Laws always seem pretty poor when there are multiple infractions.

[pran]

The laws don't seem to indicate that either Law takes precedence.

In general, the Laws always seem pretty poor when there are multiple infractions.

If I may say so, this is not my experience with the laws in general.

 

But then, as part of my training to be a Director I have been given to understand also the logic behind the laws, and I suppose that does make an important difference.

[iviehoff]

The wording of 50D2a (or rather the punctuation) makes it clear that a prohibition of a suit applies for as long as that player is on lead, but a requirement to lead the suit doesn't.

I'm not sure I would in general rely on the absence of comma to say something was "clear". There are other ways if could have been made clearer.

 

But presumably this ought to be well known case law and I therefore I assume you know it from that.

[pran]

The wording of 50D2a (or rather the punctuation) makes it clear that a prohibition of a suit applies for as long as that player is on lead, but a requirement to lead the suit doesn't.

I'm not sure I would in general rely on the absence of comma to say something was "clear". There are other ways if could have been made clearer.

 

But presumably this ought to be well known case law and I therefore I assume you know it from that.

From Law 50D2a: to require* the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card, or to prohibit* him from leading that suit for as long as he retains the lead

 

I can assure you both from knowing the background (logic) of the laws and from reading the text literally as written that it is the prohibition (not the requirement) that remains in effect for as long as the player retains the lead.

The logic is that the player may not for instance lead an Ace in a different suit and then happily continue with a card in the prohibited suit.

 

Law 26 has a similar rule, possibly clearer stated, but I really don't see any problem with either text.

[iviehoff]

I can assure you both from knowing the background (logic) of the laws and from reading the text literally as written that it is the prohibition (not the requirement) that remains in effect for as long as the player retains the lead.

 

The logic is that the player may not for instance lead an Ace in a different suit and then happily continue with a card in the prohibited suit.

If Law 50 was all we had, it would seems to me to be almost as "logical" that player should not be able to play an Ace in a suit he is required to lead, and then switch.

 

The 26A case, much more clearly written, clearly helps dispel this. Case law would be good.

 

What I feel uncomfortable with is the claim that knowledge of the "background" of the laws is reliable in parsing them. It sounds too much like "trust me, I know this". Knowledge of the way the laws use language is clearly essential. But it seems that a belief that a law-maker had something particular principle in mind is dangerous. It was the actual text that was agreed too, and other lawmakers may have had something else in mind in agreeing to the actual text, and may indeed have agreed to a text precisely because it did not conform to some principle someone was talking about. So I think we should read what they actually wrote, except when there are WBF memos or case-law that can help us.

 

Edited because I didn't like what I wrote first time.

Edited November 17, 2009 by iviehoff

[bluejak]

Sven's view is certainly not mainstream. If the Laws say something, you follow them unless an authority tells you otherwise. Trying to work out what the WBFLC intended tends to be counter-productive since if it comes to a different answer from what the Law said, then the intention is irrelevant.

 

I am interested in his view that the Law deals well with multiple infractions. Since the opposite view seems in the past to be the only unanimous view of the Laws on the internet, so be it: it is no longer unanimous. <_< But I am unconvinced: the Laws do not tell you what to do with multiple infractions, so working out what to do tends to be tricky and inconsistent.

[pran]

Sven's view is certainly not mainstream.  If the Laws say something, you follow them unless an authority tells you otherwise.  Trying to work out what the WBFLC intended tends to be counter-productive since if it comes to a different answer from what the Law said, then the intention is irrelevant.

Very well.

 

I just do not appreciate these personal attacks on me (with or without my name mentioned) so allow me to again quote from the Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. This commentary was an official document from EBL, and as law 50 on the disposition of penalty cards is essentially unchanged since the 1987 version we may safely assume that the related comments are still valid:

from 50.8 (i): [..... Declarer] may direct partner of the offender to lead or not to lead the suit of the penalty card when the offenders partner is on lead (in which case the penalty card is picked up), and if he forbids the lead the bar remains until the lead has transferred to a different player. Or he may stipulate neither of these requirements in which case the penalty card remains a penalty card. (Enhancement by me)

 

To the extent that I have expressed my view I claim that this is a view I have inherited from the best authorities available.

 

If bluejak claims that this view is not binding on WBFLC I shall challenge him to find a different understanding of Law 50 on the disposition of major penalty cards presented by a more qualified expert than Grattan and Bent. I doubt that he can.

[bluejak]

The authority you quote is out of date and anyway is irrelevant to the case in this thread. There is a problem with multiple infractions: it is a fact, not a personal attack, that in all the years of discussing laws on the internet and elsewhere, you are the only person who sees no problem.

 

Take your "authority": where dies it deal with multiple infractions?

 

When you have a choice between following your belief in what you think the intent of the lawmakers is and the Law as written it is hardly a personal attack that I think your view to follow your own opinion and not the Law as written is not mainstream.

 

It is true that I believe your views expressed in this thread are erroneous. That is my opinion, and does not constitute a personal attack.

[pran]

The authority you quote is out of date and anyway is irrelevant to the case in this thread. There is a problem with multiple infractions: it is a fact, not a personal attack, that in all the years of discussing laws on the internet and elsewhere, you are the only person who sees no problem.

 

Take your "authority": where dies it deal with multiple infractions?

 

When you have a choice between following your belief in what you think the intent of the lawmakers is and the Law as written it is hardly a personal attack that I think your view to follow your own opinion and not the Law as written is not mainstream.

 

It is true that I believe your views expressed in this thread are erroneous.  That is my opinion, and does not constitute a personal attack.

The "authority" Grattan is at present secretary to the WBFLC, is he out of date?

The comments I quoted were issued in 1992 and relate to a law that has been maintained unchanged from 1987 through 2007. Where does it say that the understanding of this law has changed since then?

You keep on stating that "my" understanding of this law (50) is erroneous, but you have completely failed to give any alternative understanding. Isn't this then another of your personal attacs rather than a serious discussion? I would have had some respect for you had you at least offered a different understanding of the laws under discussion instead of just stating that other people do not know what they are talking about.

I see no point in exchanging views with you on such terms so I shall stop right here.

[bluejak]

I have not made any comments about the specific Law. It is your generalised statements that are erroneous, namely:

• There is no difficulty with multiple infractions
  
• When the intent behind a Law is understood that supersedes the actual wording of the Law
  
• The Black book is a current authority