declarer opens LHO passes and partner doubles. I know it's unacceptable but how is the best way to deal with it?
thanks to anyone who can help on this one.
jonathan
The best way to deal with it, as always, is to follow the laws!
LAW 36 - INADMISSIBLE DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES
A. Offender’s LHO Calls before Rectification
If offender’s LHO calls before rectification of an inadmissible
double or redouble the inadmissible call and all subsequent
calls are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose
turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no
irregularity. The lead restrictions in Law 26B do not apply.
B. Offender’s LHO does not Call before Rectification
When A does not apply:
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. if the call is out of turn the auction reverts to the
player whose turn it was to call, the offender may
make any legal call at his turn, and his partner must
pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 72C may
apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply.
C. Irregularity Discovered after the Auction Period
When attention is drawn to an inadmissible double or
redouble only after the opening lead has been faced, the
final contract is scored as if the inadmissible call had not
been made.
It's always been an interesting question to me how players know what an insufficient bid or inadmissible call is meant to mean, given that you can't reasonably have agreements about the specific sequence. Nonetheless, players often do seem to know in practice. I once saw the bidding sequence 2!d, (2!d); the first 2!d was announced as weak, the second was alerted. (The director was called before the alerter could explain, but they did seem to know what sort of hand their partner had. The insufficient 2!d was connected to 4!h, which was deemed incomparable. It feels to me like it might be comparable, but I'm not sure – the main reason it might not be would be if 4!h can be substantially weaker than the insufficient 2!d.)
On a similar note, I'm fairly sure I know what hand type 1!s, (P), X would show in my main partnership if it were admissible – we have general principles for deciding what low-level doubles mean and those principles apply to some illegal bidding sequences just as well as they apply to legal bidding sequences. This may well vary from partnership to partnership, though – the agreements a partnership has for legal auctions might extrapolate to illegal auctions too, or they might not, and this isn't a property that anyone worries about when designing a bidding system.
Comments
The best way to deal with it, as always, is to follow the laws!
LAW 36 - INADMISSIBLE DOUBLES AND REDOUBLES
A. Offender’s LHO Calls before Rectification
If offender’s LHO calls before rectification of an inadmissible
double or redouble the inadmissible call and all subsequent
calls are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose
turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no
irregularity. The lead restrictions in Law 26B do not apply.
B. Offender’s LHO does not Call before Rectification
When A does not apply:
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. if the call is out of turn the auction reverts to the
player whose turn it was to call, the offender may
make any legal call at his turn, and his partner must
pass whenever it is his turn to call. Law 72C may
apply. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply.
C. Irregularity Discovered after the Auction Period
When attention is drawn to an inadmissible double or
redouble only after the opening lead has been faced, the
final contract is scored as if the inadmissible call had not
been made.
Thanks Gordon. 2 Td's claimed that if the offender made a comparable bid then his partner could continue to bid.
as always you are most helpful
kind regards
I wonder how they think they would judge what is comparable to an inadmissible double!
Presumably an inadmissible redouble would be comparable? :p
It's always been an interesting question to me how players know what an insufficient bid or inadmissible call is meant to mean, given that you can't reasonably have agreements about the specific sequence. Nonetheless, players often do seem to know in practice. I once saw the bidding sequence 2!d, (2!d); the first 2!d was announced as weak, the second was alerted. (The director was called before the alerter could explain, but they did seem to know what sort of hand their partner had. The insufficient 2!d was connected to 4!h, which was deemed incomparable. It feels to me like it might be comparable, but I'm not sure – the main reason it might not be would be if 4!h can be substantially weaker than the insufficient 2!d.)
On a similar note, I'm fairly sure I know what hand type 1!s, (P), X would show in my main partnership if it were admissible – we have general principles for deciding what low-level doubles mean and those principles apply to some illegal bidding sequences just as well as they apply to legal bidding sequences. This may well vary from partnership to partnership, though – the agreements a partnership has for legal auctions might extrapolate to illegal auctions too, or they might not, and this isn't a property that anyone worries about when designing a bidding system.
The few inadmissable doubles I've seen have essentially had hands that would make a takeout double if their partner had opened.