illegal double

[dickiegera]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp]133|100[/hv]

 

North now doubles placing the card on the table and says nothing.

After 5 seconds I EAST call the director.

Director tells North you cannot do that and allows North to change bid which she did to 1♠ and told us to continue bidding.

South allowed to bid as she wished.

 

Is this correct?

I always believed that South must pass either at next turn or thru out the rest of aution.

 

Thank you

[uday]

This ACBL document ( Laws of Duplicate Bridge, 2008 ) talks about this on page 46

 

Assuming it is current

Looks like:

 

1. Double is canceled and replaced with something legal

2. Offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call

3. "Law 23" and "Lead restrictions in Law 26" may apply

[pran]

This ACBL document ( Laws of Duplicate Bridge, 2008 ) talks about this on page 46

 

Assuming it is current

Looks like:

 

1. Double is canceled and replaced with something legal

2. Offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call

3. "Law 23" and "Lead restrictions in Law 26" may apply

This is correct, but incomplete.

 

Although 5 seconds has passed the Director must first investigate if Law 25A (inadvertent call) applies.

 

Law 25A applies if North convinces the Director that it was never his intention to double, that he just pulled the unintended card from the bid box and only became aware of his mistake when attention was drawn to the irregularity.

 

(Replacing the "unintended" call with 1♠ is a strong indication that the double does not qualify as unintended and inadvertent)

[dickiegera]

This is correct, but incomplete.

 

Although 5 seconds has passed the Director must first investigate if Law 25A (inadvertent call) applies.

 

Law 25A applies if North convinces the Director that it was never his intention to double, that he just pulled the unintended card from the bid box and only became aware of his mistake when attention was drawn to the irregularity.

 

(Replacing the "unintended" call with 1♠ is a strong indication that the double does not qualify as unintended and inadvertent)

 

North was very aware of the double and looked at it during the 5 seconds.

She did not change her bid until the director told her that she had to make a different call than double

[pran]

North was very aware of the double and looked at it during the 5 seconds.

She did not change her bid until the director told her that she had to make a different call than double

Very well. Then of course no application of Law 25A here.

Edited November 10, 2014 by pran

[blackshoe]

The document Uday linked is current. B-)