Law 73 Variation in Tempo (Again!)
In a previous post I raised the interplay between Law 73D1 and 73E2.
Well, it's come up again!
Opener hesitates (at length) when opponents overcall at game level.
Openers partner then Dbls. The overcaller reserves rights etc.
As declarer, the overcaller chooses an inferior line of play and goes one off.
TD is called back, and declarer explains they only took that line of play because of the Dbl.
I don't think anyone has an issue with TD ruling that the Dbl is inadmissible. (Pass is a very logical alternative)
But TD also ruled that the score be changed to contract making.
It seems to me this might be an occasion when L73D1 applies.
Has declarer has drawn an inference, admittedly not strictly from the variation in tempo, at their own risk?
In which case although not doubled, the contract is still -1.
Comments
I don't think either of those two laws are relevant. If we are adjusting on the basis of disallowing the double, we adjust to what we think would have happened without the double, which might include the play going differently. A weighted score might be called for if we are not convince that the only reason for the line was the double.
Seems to me to be some cake and eat it here.
Declarer considers the dbl to be based on the hesitation;
yet bases the line of play on it being legit!
As Gordon says, we're considering what happens if there's no double. Of course we do have to check declarer's claim that they'd play differently without the double, since it's easy to say.
They are entitled to protection though, they don't know when playing that there's a logical alternative or that the double will be any adjustment.
Isn't it the other way round?
Declarer bases the line of play on the auction, and then when he finds out the bid did not represent the hand (and there was UI present), he requests restitution.
Indeed. If declarer based his line of play on the proposition that his opponent didn't have a legitimate double, then he would have no redress if he went down as a result of the fact that, actually, the opponent did have a legitimate double.
At the time the hand is played out, of course, declarer has reserved his rights but does not yet know whether he is going to get an adjustment, until he finds out what his opponent holds.
Thanks for the comments.
I won't bore you with the details but I think they generally vindicate TD's decision.
Declarer's reasoning for the line of play was a bit flakey. But that is irrelevant, I am 99% sure they wouldn't have played that way in an undoubled contract. IE the situation outlined by JamesC did apply. I also like JeremyChild's argument as to who is having their cake!