[Chris3875]

The bidding went 2S (weak) - Double - Double - director called. I ruled illegal double, offender then passed and ops ended up in a 3H contract. There were lead restrictions (lead or ban any suit) - but now I am wondering whether I should have taken the offender away from the table and asked him what he MEANT by the bid (I suspect it might have been a redouble). It was a red point championship pairs event.

[TylerE]

35A would seem to be the relevant one here:

Quote

If the inadmissible call was a double or redouble not permitted by Law 19, that call and all subsequent calls are canceled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it is to call, and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity.
B. Action by Player Required to Pass

[Chris3875]

There were no subsequent calls - I think Law 36B applies. My question is, should I have taken the player away to ask him what he meant by the double as I think NOW that it might have just been a mechanical problem - that he meant to redouble but didn't realise he needed to write XX (we use written bidding).

[TylerE]

The fact that there are no subsequent calls doesn't matter. The 2nd double is canceled, and that player gets to make whatever call he wants, and the auction then proceeds normally. This is one of those cases where it really *is* that simple. Of course, there might me grounds for a UI ruling if anything unusual happens, but that's a different kettle of fish.

[Chris3875]

I can't agree with that ruling Tyler - Law36B says "when LHO does not call before rectification ... the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues, and the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply".

[TylerE]

Ugh, you're right, I was reading the section assuming the call was condoned...the danger of trying to be helpful when short on time.

[Chris3875]

sooooooo ..... should I have taken the offender away from the table to ask him what the heck is double meant ?

[blackshoe]

A player who thought he'd redoubled, and then discovered he'd doubled, would ordinarily speak up and say so. Aside from that, Law 25A, which is what I think you're getting at here, speaks of changing, or attempting to change, one's call "without pause for thought", and that hasn't happened here, even if we consider that "pause for thought" should be judged from the time the player becomes aware of the problem. I would apply Law 36B, as it seems you did.

[Chris3875]

ok - I'm sort of happy about that - although I can't help feeling that he THOUGHT he had redoubled.

[bluejak]

There have always been a few TDs who seem to think they should 'offer' Law 25A. Notably, it seems to be 'the done thing' in the ACBL with an insufficient bid. But it is contrary to the Laws. Law 25A does not apply if there is no change or attempt to change. So, even if the double was meant to be a redouble Law 25A does not apply. So there is no reason to take the player away from the table.

Quote

although I can't help feeling that he THOUGHT he had redoubled.

No doubt, but then he should have tried to change it.



Please remember to give your jurisdiction in opening posts. Are you Australia? If so, was this bidding boxes or written bidding? Not that it affects the ruling, merely out of interest.

[blackshoe]

Written bidding (see Chris' second post). If this is the Chris I think it is, yes, Australia.

Edit: checked her profile. Bairnsdale, Australia. Wherever the hell that is.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2009-October-20, 10:07

[Chris3875]

How could ANYONE not know where Bairnsdale is .... geez.

East coast, Victoria ... approximately 300 klms from Melbourne. In other words, out in the "sticks" and a long way from any help with directing issues - so this website is fantastic. We have our own website in Australia but answers take a loooooong time. David, I saw a few of your responses on the Australian website which is how I bumbled my way here.