Mis explaination

[dickiegera]

Bidding goes 1D-X-3C-P [ asked about 3C and was told lots of Clubs and some points]

3D- all pass

 

 

Before opening lead I told the person making the lead that 3C [7 Clubs and 5 points] was weak as our CC both had.

Director was called and he allowed the doubler to change his bid which he changed to double

Down 3

 

Was this correct?

Thank you

[RMB1]

Bidding goes 1D-X-3C-P [ asked about 3C and was told lots of Clubs and some points]

I presume "some points" meant more points than "weak".

 

Was this correct?

No. If there was misinformation, then the final pass can be changed. But doubler can not change his pass because his partner has subsequently called: Law 21 B.1.(a).

 

But the TD can adjust the score on the basis that doubler would have doubled again if the 3♣ was weak by agreement: Law 21 B.3.

[blackshoe]

It seems the TD made an error. So perhaps he should, treating both sides as non-offending, allow the declaring side to keep their undoubled result, and give the defenders the doubled result.

 

IMO, words like "weak", "strong", and so on are too vague. Both your SCs and your explanations should be more precise.

[dickiegera]

It seems the TD made an error. So perhaps he should, treating both sides as non-offending, allow the declaring side to keep their undoubled result, and give the defenders the doubled result.

 

IMO, words like "weak", "strong", and so on are too vague. Both your SCs and your explanations should be more precise.

 

It was in a Team game IMP scoring.

Both of our Convention Cards inticate that over opponents double jump shifts are weak

[blackshoe]

It was in a Team game IMP scoring.

 

That makes it harder. I'm not prepared right now to figure out how to score it - lack of sleep.

 

Both of our Convention Cards indicate that over opponents double jump shifts are weak

 

IOW, you checked the box. Fair enough. Did they look at your card? What does "with some points" mean? As Robin suggests, this doesn't sound like "weak", it sounds like something more.

[RMB1]

That makes it harder. I'm not prepared right now to figure out how to score it - lack of sleep.

(Multi-quote is still a mystery to me :( )

 

If, using "director's error" Law82C, we decide the right ruling is opener scores 3D-3 and the other side scores 3DX-3 then we IMP these scores against the result at the other table. If it is not knockout teams, the two teams keep their (non-balancing) scores. If it is knockout then each team scores the average of the two scores, Law 86B.

 

For example if the score at the other table was 3NT= the other way, and none was vulnerable, then the score for opener's side is -150+400 = 6IMP, the other side score +500-400 = 3IMP. In knockout teams, this becomes opener's side 1.5IMP, other side -1.5IMP.

[bluejak]

It also depends on the jurisdiction which I do not know.

 

Let us assume it is a Law 12C1C jurisdiction. I doubt we would consider it certain one way or another as to whether the player would double 3D.

 

Thus a more likely ruling under Law 82C might be:

 

For opening side:

.. 30% of 3D* -3

+ 70% of 3D -3

 

For other side:

.. 70% of 3D* -3

+ 30% of 3D -3

 

This gives each side the benefit of the doubt since they are treated as non-offending for this purpose.

[barmar]

It also depends on the jurisdiction which I do not know.]

The thread title says ACBL.

[bluejak]

Sorry: you are right. Once you have hit 'Reply' then the thread title is still there but the secondary comment [which contained 'ACBL'] is not.

 

In a Law 12C1E jurisdiction then that ruling is certainly impossible.