[lmilne]

A defender makes a lead out of turn, on opening lead, faced upwards.

Declarer does not accept the lead and requires the defender's partner to lead the suit his partner led out of turn.

Law 50D, 2. d) states

Quote

Declarer may choose (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.

* If the player is unable to lead as required, see Law 59.

I'm sure everyone knows the answer to this one, but the wording seems ambiguous. Clearly if the lead of the suit is prohibited, a defender cannot cash a side-suit and switch back to the wrongly led suit. But what if the lead of the wrongly led suit is REQUIRED by declarer, and the defender cashes the Ace of that suit? Is he required to continue with another round, or can he switch?

Basically, does the "for as long as he retains the lead" apply to both parts of the sentence, or only the second part?

[pran]

lmilne, on 2015-July-03, 23:14, said:

A defender makes a lead out of turn, on opening lead, faced upwards.

Declarer does not accept the lead and requires the defender's partner to lead the suit his partner led out of turn.

Law 50D, 2. d) states



I'm sure everyone knows the answer to this one, but the wording seems ambiguous. Clearly if the lead of the suit is prohibited, a defender cannot cash a side-suit and switch back to the wrongly led suit. But what if the lead of the wrongly led suit is REQUIRED by declarer, and the defender cashes the Ace of that suit? Is he required to continue with another round, or can he switch?

Basically, does the "for as long as he retains the lead" apply to both parts of the sentence, or only the second part?

A prohibition lasts for as long as he (continuously) retains the lead, a requirement applies only to that particular lead.

[RMB1]

lmilne, on 2015-July-03, 23:14, said:

...
Law 50D, 2. d) states

Quote

Declarer may choose (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.

I'm sure everyone knows the answer to this one, but the wording seems ambiguous. ... But what if the lead of the wrongly led suit is REQUIRED by declarer, and the defender cashes the Ace of that suit? Is he required to continue with another round, or can he switch?

Basically, does the "for as long as he retains the lead" apply to both parts of the sentence, or only the second part?

It may be ambiguous, but we have always read it that "for as long as he retains the lead" only applies to the second part.

I guess "we" means EBU TD practice and training.

[gordontd]

I think it would need an additional comma for it to be really ambiguous.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2015-July-04, 05:50, said:

I think it would need an additional comma for it to be really ambiguous.

Depends where you put the comma: a comma before "or" would be less ambiguous, a comma before "for" would be more ambiguous.

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2015-July-04, 05:40, said:

It may be ambiguous, but we have always read it that "for as long as he retains the lead" only applies to the second part.

I guess "we" means EBU TD practice and training.

Same here in ACBL.

[barmar]

There is no 50D2d. The clause that covers this is 50D2a, and it has the comma that disambiguates it.

http://158.255.45.21...lcode/law50.asp

Quote

Declarer may choose:
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

I just checked the 1997 version, it's the same as the current version. Where do you see the ambiguous wording?

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2015-July-04, 22:13, said:

I just checked the 1997 version, it's the same as the current version. Where do you see the ambiguous wording?

I agree with Barry. There would need to be a comma after the second "suit" or perhaps no comma at all for it to be read differently.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-July-05, 01:16, said:

I agree with Barry. There would need to be a comma after the second "suit" or perhaps no comma at all for it to be read differently.

An unambiguous and presumably intended wording might be "Declarer may choose: (a) to require* the defender to lead the suit of the penalty card or, as long as he retains the lead, to prohibit* him from leading that suit <snip>

[barmar]

While there may be ways to improve it, I think most consider the current presentation to be adequate and unambiguous. Anyone who thinks that "as long as he retains the lead" applies to the requirement to lead the suit simply doesn't understand the role of commas in sentences like this.

I was wondering if the OP got his phrasing from a translation, and the commas were lost in translation. But that still doesn't explain how he got the numbering wrong, too.