double of partners double

[dickiegera]

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=3cd5cdp]133|100[/hv]

 

South now doubles his partners double

 

 

Now what?

 

#1 I believe there are lead penalites

 

#2 If East is hurt by South inability to make a comperable bid then is adjusted score in the books?

 

 

Thank you

[pran]

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=3cd5cdp]133|100[/hv]

 

South now doubles his partners double

 

 

Now what?

 

#1 I believe there are lead penalites

 

#2 If East is hurt by South inability to make a comperable bid the is adjusted score in the books?

 

 

Thank you

Oh dear oh dear - correcting my correction back to my first response: (I AM tired - sorry. The offender is South who's double is not shown in the diagram)

 

so indeed:

1. any double or redouble not permitted by Law 19 is cancelled.

2. the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues, and the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call.

3. Law 72C may apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply.

4. (irrelevant here)

[pescetom]

Oh dear oh dear - correcting my correction back to my first response: (I AM tired - sorry. The offender is South who's double is not shown in the diagram

 

How do you see 26B working out here?

I would be tempted to consider Pass of partner's Double as comparable to an attempt to Double - but if not, I guess Declarer could prohibit North from leading any one suit other than clubs.

[pran]

How do you see 26B working out here?

I would be tempted to consider Pass of partner's Double as comparable to an attempt to Double - but if not, I guess Declarer could prohibit North from leading any one suit other than clubs.

Lead Restrictions

When an offending player’s call is withdrawn and it is not replaced by a comparable call, then if he becomes a defender declarer may, at the offender’s partner’s first turn to lead (which may be the opening lead) prohibit offender’s partner from leading any (one) suit which has not been specified in the legal auction by the offender. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender’s partner retains the lead.

The illegal double is replaced by a PASS as required by Law 36B.

This PASS does not convey any information at all and therefore does not satisfy any of the conditions in Law 23 for a call being comparable to the withdrawn double.

Consequently, if East or West becomes declarer then he may apply Law 26B prohibiting any (one) of the four suits.

[axman]

The illegal double is replaced by a PASS as required by Law 36B.

This PASS does not convey any information at all and therefore does not satisfy any of the conditions in Law 23 for a call being comparable to the withdrawn double.

Consequently, if East or West becomes declarer then he may apply Law 26B prohibiting any (one) of the four suits.

I think you are a bit fast on the trigger. Offender's X being canceled he is obligated to substitute a legal call, which can be a pass yet need not be. I suspect that UI considerations can be a factor, but as you point out in the case of pass would not.

[pran]

I think you are a bit fast on the trigger. Offender's X being canceled he is obligated to substitute a legal call, which can be a pass yet need not be. I suspect that UI considerations can be a factor, but as you point out in the case of pass would not.

Sorry, my mistake.

Sure, the offender must substitute a legal call and his partner must pass. Still I fail to see how the offender's replacing call can in any way be comparable to the illegal double?

So the possible lead restriction (according to Law 26B) will depend on the actual suit (if any) specified by the offender in the legal auction.

[sanst]

Just wondering: what can be the meaning of a double of partner’s double? The whole idea of anything being comparable is ridiculous and, more importantly even, Law 36 nowhere mentions the comparability clause, so it doesn’t come into question.

If the first double by S is take out, he has actually shown all suits but clubs if his TO is what it should be. So, if S becomes a defender, E can forbid N to lead clubs the first time he is to lead. I’m not so sure that that is what the lawmakers foresaw when they wrote 26B :D .

[sfi]

Just wondering: what can be the meaning of a double of partner’s double? The whole idea of anything being comparable is ridiculous and, more importantly even, Law 36 nowhere mentions the comparability clause, so it doesn’t come into question.

If the first double by S is take out, he has actually shown all suits but clubs if his TO is what it should be. So, if S becomes a defender, E can forbid N to lead clubs the first time he is to lead. I’m not so sure that that is what the lawmakers foresaw when they wrote 26B :D .

The question of "comparable call" is only relevant when considering lead restrictions (Law 26A/B) - partner is going to be barred in the bidding no matter what.

 

I'm struggling to buy any of the arguments about what suits South has shown, whether clubs or the other three suits. The Laws Commentary provides the following advice relevant to lead restrictions:

For a suit to be exempt from a lead penalty the legal auction must have imparted suit-specific information (i.e., information about the actual holding in that particular suit).

The arguments presented are IMO tenuous at best and there is not even clear agreement about whether the double is meant as takeout or penalties. In either case, it doesn't seem to meet the requirement to "have imparted suit-specific information". Unless South explicitly mentions another suit I would rule that declarer gets to forbid any one suit the first time North is on lead.

[blackshoe]

South's illegal double is withdrawn (Law 36B1).

South may substitute any legal call, after which the auction continues, and North must pass whenever it is his turn to call (Law 36B2).

Law 72C may apply (Law 36B3). Frankly, I don't see how it might apply in this case, unless there's additional evidence not yet presented.

The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply (Law 36B3). I expect they probably will, as I don't see a comparable call to the withdrawn double. But I can't say how they might apply without seeing the rest of the auction.

 

OP asks "If East is hurt by South inability to make a comperable (sic) bid the (sic) is adjusted score in the books?"

It seems highly unlikely that EW will be damaged, in the legal sense, if South can't make a comparable call. If that's the case, there is no basis for a score adjustment.

[pran]

South's illegal double is withdrawn (Law 36B1).

South may substitute any legal call, after which the auction continues, and North must pass whenever it is his turn to call (Law 36B2).

Law 72C may apply (Law 36B3). Frankly, I don't see how it might apply in this case, unless there's additional evidence not yet presented.

The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply (Law 36B3). I expect they probably will, as I don't see a comparable call to the withdrawn double. But I can't say how they might apply without seeing the rest of the auction.

 

OP asks "If East is hurt by South inability to make a comperable (sic) bid the (sic) is adjusted score in the books?"

It seems highly unlikely that EW will be damaged, in the legal sense, if South can't make a comparable call. If that's the case, there is no basis for a score adjustment.

I think the question of Law 72C boils down to whether the illegal double by South was (convincingly) accidental or South could be suspected of (illegally) attempting to prevent North from (for instance) sacrificing over 5♣?

[sfi]

I think the question of Law 72C boils down to whether the illegal double by South was (convincingly) accidental or South could be suspected of (illegally) attempting to prevent North from (for instance) sacrificing over 5♣?

North already had the chance to sacrifice - South could just have passed to penalise 5C.

[pran]

North already had the chance to sacrifice - South could just have passed to penalise 5C.

Matchpoint scoring - yes.

IMP scoring - double for increased penalty.

???

[sfi]

Matchpoint scoring - yes.

IMP scoring - double for increased penalty.

???

The partnership has already doubled 5C. Have you missed North's double?

[pran]

The partnership has already doubled 5C. Have you missed North's double?

No, but maybe South did?

That would not itself necessarily make South's double inadvertent.

[pescetom]

My doubt remains that if by agreement North's double was for penalty and South was attempting to double for penalty too, then Pass might be considered a comparable call (having the same purpose, penalty) from the point of view of lead restriction.

[pran]

My doubt remains that if by agreement North's double was for penalty and South was attempting to double for penalty too, then Pass might be considered a comparable call (having the same purpose, penalty) from the point of view of lead restriction.

Law 36B does not refer to Law 23 and Law 36B2 (being a specific law) explicitly implies that Law 23B (being a general law) shall not apply in this situation.