Lead restriction and logical alternative
I came across an interesting example described by Jacob Duschek but I can't follow the ramifications to the end.
He mentions an example auction where South bids 1spade out of turn, it is not accepted, then West and East bid 1NT and 3NT and South does not rejoin the auction.
West can make a lead restriction on North for the opening lead.
Might be sensible to prohibit a Spade lead by North.
However, South's retracted 1S bid is unauthorised info to North so if they have logical alternatives to leading a spade they should not lead one anyway.
So may be West causes North more problems if they prohibit another suit instead.
I am OK up to this stage.
But say North's hand was such that originally the only logical alternative leads were either a spade or a diamond.
If West prohibits a lead of a diamond does this mean that given leading a spade is now the only remaining logical alternative so a spade can be led?
Comments
hmm. If a play is no longer legal because West has exercised his lead restirictions I think it shouldn't be considered a logical alternative.
I think how to use your lead restriction options is a subject worthy of thought and discussion.
I’m 2/3 through reading this excellent book.
I think the example you have given is from page 84, but it is East who calls 1S OOT. (Call not accepted and cancelled).
South bids 1N, raised to 3N by North. W&E passing. (See pic)
As I see it, the Spade call (by East) is not part of the legal auction. UI by W, AI by N&S.
W is on lead so S can restrict any one suit lead from W.
S may want to hang onto his Spade stopper, so prevent a Spade lead.
Alternatively, if happy with a S lead may restrict a lead of say Diamonds or another suit.
After West looses the lead, they can lead any suit, but partners Spade suit is still UI. South can only have one shot at a lead restriction.
By the way, I would recommend this book on A guide to the Bridge Laws to any aspiring TD.
Kind regards Steve
Yes, I agree, I am finding it superb.
There is the question of which spade - N cannot lead one suggested by the withdrawn bid.
That said, following the legal auction, South opens 1NT and North closes with 3NT and all pass.
But there is UI to East, due to the cancelled Spade OOT bid.
If South prevents a Spade opening lead; West must choose his best lead from the other 3 suits. That seems ok.
Now, let’s assume they were playing with Screens and West is on lead (he is not aware of the Spade OOT (cancelled) bid). If South prevents West from leading a diamond, then West should choose his best (logical alternative) lead out of the remaining 3 suits. If that happens to be the Spade suit, then that’s acceptable.
However, if we’re not playing with screens and we know there is possible UI to West, then if the Spade suit is not a logical alternative to lead, then this is specified as illegal by the author. The TD would be called to adjudicate.
This is how I read it.
The test would be whether there is a logical alternative lead to the spade.
I know nothing about screens, but I do find it intriguing that if a defender is unaware of the withdrawn call, declarer still has lead restriction options.
In fact I don't see the point of law 26B. Why is declarer being given an advantage when the UI rules still apply?
Wow, I have never played with, or even seen, screens in real life.
But I understood them to operate quite differently.
Surely everyone sees all the CALLs? Including any that are subsequently withdrawn? Or changed?
The more I consider this the more sure I am.
These "errors" may have authorised info for BOTH members of the non-offending side, not just LHO of misbidder.
In addition, how could one tell a COOT was made at RHO's or partner's turn?
Everyone must be seeing ALL the calls?
At the end of the auction, the screen is partly raised so all can see the bidding, which in this case would be 1NT, P, 3NT, P,P,P.
If declarer has not seen the BOOT then they should be advised before the play starts and lead restrictions explained.
Playing with screens if an infraction has not yet been passed through to the other side of the screen, it is corrected without rectification.