Re: 2017 Law 26 (Call Withdrawn, Lead Restrictions)
Richard Hills <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I agree with Gordon Rainsford that the lead restrictions gifted to declarer by Law 26B are sometimes draconian. However, the major penalty card lead restrictions gifted to declarer by Law 50D2 are even more draconian (because Law 50D2(b) gives declarer a third option of waiting). If the 2027 Drafting Committee chooses to repeal Law 26, then in my opinion it should be consistent and also repeal most of the penalty card Laws. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 5 Jun 2017, at 6:16 PM, Gordon Rainsford <[email protected]> wrote: > > Certainly it is easier to understand and apply, but it's effects are sometimes draconian. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 5 Jun 2017, at 08:15, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Law 26 was comprehensively rewritten by the 2017 Drafting Committee. >> >> Outcomes - lead a suit specified by declarer / do not lead a suit (while retaining the lead) specified by declarer - are similar. However, in my opinion, the 2017 Law 26 is much easier for a Director to understand than the recondite wording of the 2007 Law 26. >> >> The 2017 Law 26A (No Lead Restrictions) also contains useful cross-references to the new 2017 Law 23 (Comparable Call). >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Richard Hills >> >> Sent from my iPad >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml