[bluejak]

Ok, well, as I told the TD, I would have bid 3♠. Perhaps he did tell me about the double but I have no note of it.

Let us consider the double. Let us assume, for argument's sake, we decide to adjust because we decide to disallow the 3♠ bid.

First of all, do we need to worry about whether the double was intended as a double shot? No, because it is not illegal per se to try for a double shot, since some such attempts are legal, some are not, and the player's intent is irrelevant. In fact, there seems to be a growing complaint amongst players who have committed an infraction that their opponents have committed a double shot. But this does not [and should not] affect whether they get ruled against.

However, there is some feeling amongst the lawmakers against the double shot. But the effect is that there is a law covering the situation, namely 12C1B. It does not affect the offenders' score which is as it should be. So what we do is to consider whether the standards in 12C1B have been met so as to deny all or part of the redress for the non-offender's only.

Now, still assuming for argument's sake we are disallowing the 3♠ bid, what do we think of the double. Is it wild? Is it gambling? Is it a serious error unrelated to the infraction? Time for another poll!

South has nine points including two fairly likely tricks, his partner has opened and bid again freely, but in the wrong suits. It is MP Pairs. I would not double, but I do not double enough in the Pairs game, and I wonder ......

Well, as I say, iIould poll, but I think double is optimistic, but not wild, gambling or a serious error unrelated to the infraction. So if I adjust at all, I adjust thesame for both sides.