[LH2650]

I was not the director who handled this problem. The bidding:

N E S W
1H - P - P - X
2C - 2S - P - P
X - P - (2H, X, P) - P
P

Edit: Changed symbol for Double from D to X.

On the third round of bidding, South made an insufficient bid of 2H, not accepted, changed the call to Double, which was cancelled, and finally substituted a Pass. Presumably the final contract is 2 Spades Doubled. When North first comes into the lead, there is a lead penalty.

The lead penalty for the the withdrawn 2H bid is that Declarer may require the lead of a heart, or prohibit the lead of a heart as long as North holds the lead.

The lead penalty for the withdrawn Double is that Declarer may prohibit the lead of any one suit, for as long as North holds the lead.

What should the penalty be for the multiple infractions?
Are there any other considerations I have missed that might lead to an adjusted score?

[TylerE]

Just as a note the notation for a double is X not P. Much friendlier to those of us with less than perfect vision.

[pran]

LH2650, on 2011-January-05, 16:19, said:

I was not the director who handled this problem. The bidding:

N E S W
1H - P - P - D
2C - 2S - P - P
D - P - (2H, D, P) - P
P

On the third round of bidding, South made an insufficient bid of 2H, not accepted, changed the call to Double, which was cancelled, and finally substituted a Pass. Presumably the final contract is 2 Spades Doubled. When North first comes into the lead, there is a lead penalty.

The lead penalty for the the withdrawn 2H bid is that Declarer may require the lead of a heart, or prohibit the lead of a heart as long as North holds the lead.

The lead penalty for the withdrawn Double is that Declarer may prohibit the lead of any one suit, for as long as North holds the lead.

What should the penalty be for the multiple infractions?
Are there any other considerations I have missed that might lead to an adjusted score?

The 2H bid is withdrawn and is not replaced with a call that satisfies the conditions in Law 27B1, nor is the Hearts denomination specified in a legal call by the same player during the auction so Law 26A2 applies for this withdrawn call.

The attempt to substitute a double for the insufficient bid brings us directly to Law 27B3 and from there to Law 26B.

Consequently declarer may require the offender’s partner to lead a heart; or prohibit offender’s partner from leading any one 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. (Declarer selects the in case prohibited suit at the time for such lead.)

[mjj29]

pran, on 2011-January-05, 17:53, said:

Consequently declarer may require the offender’s partner to lead a heart; or prohibit offender’s partner from leading any one 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. (Declarer selects the in case prohibited suit at the time for such lead.)

Is he not able to prohibit a heart (because of the 2H) and a spade (because of the X)? Or require a heart and prohibit a spade (in case he has no heart to lead)?

[matmat]

Hmmm. maybe declarer should be allowed to request to look at the opening leader's hand and specify the card to be led. That might well teach RHO.

[pran]

mjj29, on 2011-January-05, 18:16, said:

Is he not able to prohibit a heart (because of the 2H) and a spade (because of the X)? Or require a heart and prohibit a spade (in case he has no heart to lead)?

No, he has one choice and must select which one he will apply.

And if the player cannot comply with declarer's decision (because he is void in the requested suit or only have cards in a prohibited suit) then he is free to lead any card at his own choice, declarer has no second choice.

[campboy]

I agree with Matt. There is nothing in Law 26 to say that if he makes the choice he has as a consequence of the double he is no longer permitted to make the choice he has as a consequence of the 2♥ bid or vice versa.

I also believe the lawmakers intended this interpretation, since it is consistent with the way lead restrictions from penalty cards work (51B2b).

[bluejak]

As I have said before, I think the law-makers usually tend to ignore multiple infractions and let people work out their own approach. Both prans and mjj29s interpretation are possible within the letter of the Law, so absent an official ruling otherwise I would not say a TD was wrong who did one or the other. I would probably go for mjj29s interpretation myself.



Incidentally, if a poster wishes to show a bidding sequence this way I have no objection. But I wonder if everyone realises that if you click on the little spade/bell symbol and delete the four 'include ...' ticks then you can just show a bidding sequence with no hands?

[LH2650]

bluejak, on 2011-January-06, 07:50, said:

As I have said before, I think the law-makers usually tend to ignore multiple infractions and let people work out their own approach. Both prans and mjj29s interpretation are possible within the letter of the Law, so absent an official ruling otherwise I would not say a TD was wrong who did one or the other. I would probably go for mjj29s interpretation myself.



Incidentally, if a poster wishes to show a bidding sequence this way I have no objection. But I wonder if everyone realises that if you click on the little spade/bell symbol and delete the four 'include ...' ticks then you can just show a bidding sequence with no hands?

If mjj29's approach is used, might it be possible to construct a case, with two more irregularities, where Declarer is able to prohibit North from leading every suit?

The hand editor is really nice, but I haven't been able to convince it that a player took 3 calls at one turn.

[blackshoe]

I suppose if your interpretation of law leads to that kind of conundrum (a player is unable to do anything), you must either take a different approach, or cancel the board and award an ArtAS. On the other hand, the chances of your scenario actually happening are so minute that perhaps we can just ignore it.

[RMB1]

LH2650, on 2011-January-06, 12:11, said:

If mjj29's approach is used, might it be possible to construct a case, with two more irregularities, where Declarer is able to prohibit North from leading every suit?

If declarer gets greedy and tries to prohibit (almost) every suit, and defender can not comply then Law 59 would allow the defender to lead or play any (otherwise legal) card.

Laws, on 2007, said:

LAW 59: INABILITY TO LEAD OR PLAY AS REQUIRED
A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has only cards of a suit he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-January-06, 07:50, said:

As I have said before, I think the law-makers usually tend to ignore multiple infractions and let people work out their own approach. Both prans and mjj29s interpretation are possible within the letter of the Law, so absent an official ruling otherwise I would not say a TD was wrong who did one or the other. I would probably go for mjj29s interpretation myself.

Nothing in that interpretation prevents declarer from requesting a heart lead according to law 26A2 and simultaneously prohibiting a heart lead according to Law 26B.

I suggest that those who argue declarer's option to change his choice in case the player cannot comply with the request or prohibition first selected by declarer take a look at Law 59 and then decide if they will maintain their opinion.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2011-January-06, 12:45, said:

I suggest that those who argue declarer's option to change his choice in case the player cannot comply with the request or prohibition first selected by declarer take a look at Law 59 and then decide if they will maintain their opinion.

I wonder who you are thinking of, because I can't see anyone making such an argument.

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2011-January-07, 03:00, said:

I wonder who you are thinking of, because I can't see anyone making such an argument.

I may have misunderstood, and if so I apologize.
My point is that declarer has the choice between using Law 26A on the withdrawn 2H bid and using Law 26B on the withdrawn double; he must select one.
I understood the counter-argument to be that declarer could first try one of these alternatives and if that "failed" try the other?

Quote from mjj29: Or require a heart and prohibit a spade (in case he has no heart to lead)?

[pran]

Further to OP:

LH2650, on 2011-January-05, 16:19, said:

I was not the director who handled this problem. The bidding:

N E S W
1H - P - P - X
2C - 2S - P - P
X - P - (2H, X, P) - P
P

On the third round of bidding, South made an insufficient bid of 2H, not accepted, changed the call to Double, which was cancelled, and finally substituted a Pass. Presumably the final contract is 2 Spades Doubled. When North first comes into the lead, there is a lead penalty.

The lead penalty for the the withdrawn 2H bid is that Declarer may require the lead of a heart, or prohibit the lead of a heart as long as North holds the lead.

The lead penalty for the withdrawn Double is that Declarer may prohibit the lead of any one suit, for as long as North holds the lead.

What should the penalty be for the multiple infractions?
Are there any other considerations I have missed that might lead to an adjusted score?

Here I am only speculating because we do not have all neccessary information on the case:

For instance if offender tried to replace his IB with a double after the Director had arrived at the table my suspicion is that the Director has failed to inform him of law 27B3 and we have a director's error.

And if the non-offending side has taken any action (other than calling the Director) on the IB we may have a Law 11A case if the offender then immediately tried to correct his IB to a double in ignorance of Law 27B3.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-January-07, 03:31, said:

My point is that declarer has the choice between using Law 26A on the withdrawn 2H bid and using Law 26B on the withdrawn double; he must select one.

It does not say that in the Law book.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2011-January-07, 03:31, said:

My point is that declarer has the choice between using Law 26A on the withdrawn 2H bid and using Law 26B on the withdrawn double; he must select one.
I understood the counter-argument to be that declarer could first try one of these alternatives and if that "failed" try the other?

Quote from mjj29: Or require a heart and prohibit a spade (in case he has no heart to lead)?

I didn't read mjj29's point as declarer imposing a prohibition on a spade lead if the leader cannot comply with a required heart lead. Rather, I read it as declarer both requiring a heart lead and forbidding a spade lead at the same time, before he knew whether or not the defender could comply with the requirement to lead a heart. Of course, the prohibition of a spade lead will only actually have any additional impact over and above the requirement to lead a heart if the leader actually doesn't have any hearts, but declarer doesn't know whether or not that is the case at the time that he makes his choice.

[campboy]

As WellSpyder says, the argument is that he has the options to make a lead restriction as a result of the 2♥ bid and the option to make a lead restriction as a result of the double, and there is nothing to say he may not do both. Of course he must make his choice before finding out whether defender has a heart. However, what happens if he requires a heart and forbids a spade? Clearly if the defender has a heart he must lead it, but if not law 59 applies to the first rectification but not the second. He can't lead a heart so he may lead any otherwise legal card... but a spade is not "otherwise legal" since there is a separate rectification forbidding him from leading a spade.

[bluejak]

You just apply Law 59 again.