bbubbles

Apparently there is a law that says because we didn’t query the incorrect double ruling at the table at the time any advantage to the offender is taken away so that’s why the 4h was left in and the double removed. We waited till the end of the session and then talked to director within the 30 minute time frame instead. It’s can’t be law 11a as we called the director immediately the insufficient bid was made. Also the director gave no options other than do you want to accept this insufficient bid to LHO which wasn’t accepted and to the offender that he could make any bid which was the double. The offenders partner was told he could not bid again. LHO asked if there were any lead restrictions and was told no , not after a double. To his credit I overheard the director rule about an insufficient bid 2 weeks later and comparable bids were mentioned so it seems the director has done some homework. I’m happy with that outcome.

Thank you very much for your reply. After reading all the laws it is obvious the Director’s calls were incorrect. I’m reassured that I wasn’t wrong and have improved my own learning.

Agree

Remember there were no lead restrictions as well. I have a lot of respect for the Director who is a lovely person. Something just went wrong with that ruling . I make my share of mistakes. It didn’t affect our outcome but it may have changed others. Thanks for your humours reply. Made my day.

That’s what I thought. The double was taken away and the score was left in 4 h our way. 20% board result.

East’s last bid was 4h. South pass West pass North 4d. The director was called for the insufficient bid. North changed the bid to a double. The director allowed it with no lead restrictions. E/ W played it in 4h x. After the session the director was approached and the director realised allowing the double was incorrect. What law/ laws now apply ?