Getting around lead penalties (restrictions)

[Kenny McCormack]

Assume that you are on lead against some contract.

Suppose that there has been an infraction of some sort such that there are
lead penalties. That is, the director has told declarer that he can either
forbid or require the lead of a particular suit. One can, of course,
assume that if declarer forbids a suit, that he is afraid of that suit and,
conversely, that if he requires it, that he likes that suit. Our objective,
then, should be to thwart whichever wish declarer has expressed by his
choice.

Now, the key to this is that the lead penalties only apply to the opening
lead. As defenders, you are, obviously, allowed to play (or not play) the
specified suit later on in the play. So, what is to prevent you from
employing of the following strategies:

1) If lead of a certain suit is forbidden, then you lead an ace (of
some other suit) at trick 1, then switch to the forbidden suit at
trick 2.

2) If lead of a certain suit is required, then you lead the ace of that
suit at trick 1, then switch to some other suit at trick 2.

I would assume that, if the director is willing to invest the time, either
of these might be dealt with by the general clause that "if equity is not
restored, further redress is possible", but I'm interested if there is any
chapter/verse already in place to deal with these issues.

[Lorne Anderson]

Post by Kenny McCormack
So, what is to prevent you from
1) If lead of a certain suit is forbidden, then you lead an ace (of
some other suit) at trick 1, then switch to the forbidden suit at
trick 2.
2) If lead of a certain suit is required, then you lead the ace of that
suit at trick 1, then switch to some other suit at trick 2.

Read law 50.D.2

The lead restriction applies for as long as you are on lead so you can't
do this.

[p***@infi.net]

Post by Kenny McCormack
Assume that you are on lead against some contract.
Suppose that there has been an infraction of some sort such that there are
lead penalties. That is, the director has told declarer that he can either
forbid or require the lead of a particular suit. One can, of course,
assume that if declarer forbids a suit, that he is afraid of that suit and,
conversely, that if he requires it, that he likes that suit. Our objective,
then, should be to thwart whichever wish declarer has expressed by his
choice.
Now, the key to this is that the lead penalties only apply to the opening
lead. As defenders, you are, obviously, allowed to play (or not play) the
specified suit later on in the play. So, what is to prevent you from
1) If lead of a certain suit is forbidden, then you lead an ace (of
some other suit) at trick 1, then switch to the forbidden suit at
trick 2.
2) If lead of a certain suit is required, then you lead the ace of that
suit at trick 1, then switch to some other suit at trick 2.
I would assume that, if the director is willing to invest the time, either
of these might be dealt with by the general clause that "if equity is not
restored, further redress is possible", but I'm interested if there is any
chapter/verse already in place to deal with these issues.

That you were unaware that tactic 1 is expressly prohibited suggests that every director that has ever been called to your table for this situation has done a poor job of explaining declarer's options. Sad.

As for tactic 2, declarer should be aware of this possibility and by requiring the suit be led expect to profit from your cashing the Ace, or at least not be harmed thereby relative to the case where no lead penalties applied Of course sometimes declarer has to guess.

[f***@googlemail.com]

Post by p***@infi.net

Post by Kenny McCormack
Assume that you are on lead against some contract.
Suppose that there has been an infraction of some sort such that there are
lead penalties. That is, the director has told declarer that he can either
forbid or require the lead of a particular suit. One can, of course,
assume that if declarer forbids a suit, that he is afraid of that suit and,
conversely, that if he requires it, that he likes that suit. Our objective,
then, should be to thwart whichever wish declarer has expressed by his
choice.
Now, the key to this is that the lead penalties only apply to the opening
lead. As defenders, you are, obviously, allowed to play (or not play) the
specified suit later on in the play. So, what is to prevent you from
1) If lead of a certain suit is forbidden, then you lead an ace (of
some other suit) at trick 1, then switch to the forbidden suit at
trick 2.
2) If lead of a certain suit is required, then you lead the ace of that
suit at trick 1, then switch to some other suit at trick 2.
I would assume that, if the director is willing to invest the time, either
of these might be dealt with by the general clause that "if equity is not
restored, further redress is possible", but I'm interested if there is any
chapter/verse already in place to deal with these issues.

That you were unaware that tactic 1 is expressly prohibited suggests that every director that has ever been called to your table for this situation has done a poor job of explaining declarer's options. Sad.
As for tactic 2, declarer should be aware of this possibility and by requiring the suit be led expect to profit from your cashing the Ace, or at least not be harmed thereby relative to the case where no lead penalties applied Of course sometimes declarer has to guess.

You are putting yourself in an embarrassing position here.
Tactic 2 is also expressly prohibited by the same law that bans tactic 1. (50D2 as pointed out by Lorne)

[Wes Powers]

Post by f***@googlemail.com

Post by p***@infi.net

Post by Kenny McCormack
Assume that you are on lead against some contract.
Suppose that there has been an infraction of some sort such that there are
lead penalties. That is, the director has told declarer that he can either
forbid or require the lead of a particular suit. One can, of course,
assume that if declarer forbids a suit, that he is afraid of that suit and,
conversely, that if he requires it, that he likes that suit. Our objective,
then, should be to thwart whichever wish declarer has expressed by his
choice.
Now, the key to this is that the lead penalties only apply to the opening
lead. As defenders, you are, obviously, allowed to play (or not play) the
specified suit later on in the play. So, what is to prevent you from
1) If lead of a certain suit is forbidden, then you lead an ace (of
some other suit) at trick 1, then switch to the forbidden suit at
trick 2.
2) If lead of a certain suit is required, then you lead the ace of that
suit at trick 1, then switch to some other suit at trick 2.
I would assume that, if the director is willing to invest the time, either
of these might be dealt with by the general clause that "if equity is not
restored, further redress is possible", but I'm interested if there is any
chapter/verse already in place to deal with these issues.

That you were unaware that tactic 1 is expressly prohibited suggests that every director that has ever been called to your table for this situation has done a poor job of explaining declarer's options. Sad.
As for tactic 2, declarer should be aware of this possibility and by requiring the suit be led expect to profit from your cashing the Ace, or at least not be harmed thereby relative to the case where no lead penalties applied Of course sometimes declarer has to guess.

You are putting yourself in an embarrassing position here.
Tactic 2 is also expressly prohibited by the same law that bans tactic 1. (50D2 as pointed out by Lorne)

I don't think that's the case. Law 50D2a states:

(a) 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
(for two or more penalty cards, see Law 51); if declarer exercises
either of these options, the card is no longer a penalty card and is
picked up.

From the position of the comma, "as long as he retains the lead"
applies only to the prohibition.

In other words, tactic 2 is perfectly legal, and declarer should be
aware of its possibility.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Steve Willner]

Post by f***@googlemail.com

Post by Kenny McCormack
2) If lead of a certain suit is required, then you lead the ace
of that suit at trick 1, then switch to some other suit at trick 2

Tactic 2 is also expressly prohibited by the same law that bans
tactic 1. (50D2 as pointed out by Lorne)

The text might be ambiguous, but I've never heard of it being
interpreted that way. The comma seems to suggest that "require" is for
one lead only, and that's what I've always seen ruled. "Forbid" lasts
as long as the player holds the lead, of course.

The real problem with tactic 2 is that cashing the ace likely costs a
tempo. It may still be the best play available, if you happen to have
been dealt that ace.

[Robert Chance]

Post by Steve Willner
The text might be ambiguous, but I've never heard of it being
interpreted that way. The comma seems to suggest that "require" is for
one lead only, and that's what I've always seen ruled. "Forbid" lasts
as long as the player holds the lead, of course.

It is hard to imagine circumstances in which declarer requires the lead of a suit, you (on lead) cash the ace of that suit, and declarer isn't happy.

[t***@att.net]

While one may not directly use knowledge of Declarer's orders as pointed out here, it is possible to make use of this knowledge later in the play. There is n law forbidding Declarer from giving misleading orders either; perhaps forbid or require lead of a neutral suit in order to mislead the Defense later on. In an infinite regress, the Defenders know this too. Of course, trying to make opponents second guess incorrectly can be done by false carding etc.

[Charles Brenner]

Post by Kenny McCormack
Assume that you are on lead against some contract.
Suppose that there has been an infraction of some sort such that there are
lead penalties. That is, the director has told declarer that he can either
forbid or require the lead of a particular suit. One can, of course,
assume that if declarer forbids a suit, that he is afraid of that suit and,
conversely, that if he requires it, that he likes that suit.

Another possibility occurred to me at a club game many years ago. I bid up to 1NT and my RHO led, out of turn, a small spade. Holding AKQx in the suit I tried the experiment of forbidding the lead. It worked rather well -- after the initial non-spade lead the opponents thereafter persisted with the suit so that in effect I had a quadruple stopper. That left me time to develop my side suit which was 107xx opposite J8x, not a combination I was experienced in attacking.