Can I omit the third to in the following sentence?

Question

Can I omit the third to in the following sentence?

• She had told him to come straight in if ever she failed to open the door and to leave the bread on the kitchen table.

The context:

After her husband had gone to work. Mrs. Richards sent herchildren to school and went upstairs to her bedroom. She wastoo excited to do any housework that morning, for in theevening she would be going to a fancy-dress part with herhusband. She intended to dress up as a ghost and as she had made her costume the night before,she was impatient to try it on. Though the costume consisted only of a sheet, it was very effective.After putting it on, Mrs. Richards went downstairs. She wanted to find out whether it would becomfortable to wear.

Just as Mrs. Richards was entering the dinning room, there was a knock on the front door. She knew that it must be the baker. She had told him to come straight in if ever she failed to open thedoor and to leave the bread on the kitchen table. Not wanting to frighten the poor man, Mrs.Richards quickly hid in the small storeroom under the stairs. She heard the front door open andheavy footsteps in the hall. Suddenly the door of the storeroom was opened and a man entered.Mrs. Richards realized that it must be the man from the Electricity Board who had come to readthe metre. She tried to explain the situation, saying 'It's only me', but it was too late. The man letout cry and jumped back several paces. When Mrs. Richards walked towards him, he fled,slamming the door behind him.

Answer 1

Yes, the highlighted to is not required, since the action which follow it is been added after another one that is already in the infinitive form.

Actually it sounds such more natural without it. But it's usage is allowed.

The same is valid for more actions in a row:

This afternoon I'll be able to do the dishes, buy her gift and call my mom

Besides the first to all the others can be omitted

Answer 2

No, you can’t omit the third “to” without altering the apparent meaning of the sentence.

The original sentence follows this logical structure:

She had told him to X, if Y, and to Z.

Which has two elements: (Do X if Y is true) and then (do Z)

But if you alter this to say this:

She had told him to X, if Y, and Z.

the meaning changes to almost suggest: Do X if (Y and Z are both true). That is it adds an ambiguity about whether the woman means (paraphrasing), “I told him to come straight in if I left the door shut and bread on the table.” This of course does not fit the context, but it is a distracting ambiguity for the reader.

But notice that this is an unnatural and unnecessarily complex sentence - with or without the to. I suggest you rewrite it in your story.