Lead Restriction

[Ed Reppert]

Hm. On what UI might a club lead be based?

[Peter Goddard]

16D2:For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized.
OK, my interpretation, for what it's worth, 1C bid (alerted, short club) is withdrawn and later replaced with 1C. UI arising from the withdrawn bid is (maybe) that offender holds genuine clubs.
The alternative interpretation is that the replacement 1C is different to the original, in which case lead restrictions may apply.
The argument in favour of the first interpretation is that both 1C bids were opening bids which would be in their system possible short club bids. Any other interpretation by offender's partner depends on information arising from the withdrawn action.

[Chris]

Hi Peter,

I spoke to Martin at the Ballarat Congress and his opinion was no lead restriction. I'll be interested to hear Ed's comment as always.

By the way, what a great Congress Ballarat ran - and everyone was so friendly and welcoming. I met Eric Ramshaw who I will be working with at the GNOT Final in Queensland so at least there will be one familiar face there.

[Nick Whitten]

This is an interesting situation. I don’t see the point of making a nebulous bid at ones first legitimate turn. Remember partner could have any strength and is required to pass throughout. Better to bid ones best suit (at the lowest level the opponents let you) or have a go at 3NT or something.
So I would rule a 1C repeated would show clubs and is therefore “a call repeated with a much different meaning” IOW it is a different call.
So I reckon the lead restriction in 26B should apply.

[bluejak]

A player makes a nebulous club call out of turn at his partner's turn to call. Law 31B requires offender's partner to pass throughout, offender can make any call he likes, and Law 26 may apply.

Law 26A refers to a withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits: not the case with an artificial club, Law 26A does not apply.

Law 26B refers to other withdrawn calls, so applies in this case. So declarer may prohibit offender's partner from leading any one suit.

Suppose offender repeats his 1C bid? Entirely irrelevant, since neither Law 31B nor 26B makes any mention of later bids.

The only difference if he repeats his 1C bid is that it may affect UI. Suppose declarer bans a club lead, a spade is led, offender's partner gets in again, can he lead a club? Well, Law 26B has been satisfied, so is now irrelevant. But the out of turn 1C is UI. So if this player led a club it might be argued a club lead has been affected by UI - or it might not dependent on the full hand. But if the offender had repeated 1C, which everyone "knows" is natural [with his partner forced to pass] it might be felt that a club switch now is evident so legal.

[Barry Jones]

I don't believe a club opener which may be short in a 5 card major system is nebulous. When someone chooses to open a club in this situation they have clearly opened 1 club in preference to any other suit so MOST of the time will have clubs - Surprise It will only be short if they have exactly a 4 4 3 2 shape and can't open 1NT.

I'm sure they would have genuine clubs over 60% of the time and probably more like 80%+.

Therefore there is UI from the original 1 Club opener without any doubt surely ? They are certainly more likely to have 5 or more clubs than they are to have only 2 by better than 10 to 1 odds - I'd back that horse every time and lead a club

[Ed Reppert]

Information from withdrawn calls is unauthorized to an offending side — Law 16D says so explicitly. It remains to ask, though, what that information could demonstrably suggest, and whether there are logical alternatives to the suggested action.

For some, when partner bids a suit, and they are on opening lead, there is no LA to leading partner's suit.

There are a lot of hands that will open 1C and have more than 2 clubs. And not very many that will be exactly 4=4=3=2. And then you have to consider point counts.