[jillybean]

1♣ 1♠ Pass Double
Pass

North dealer and opens 1C

You are called to the table and find these bidding cards on the tables.
West has made an inadmissible double, but North has accepted the double with pass.

Law 36 suggests the inadmissible call (the double) and all subsequent calls are cancelled.
The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and the auction proceeds as if there was no irregularity.
There are no lead restrictions.

The auction reverts to
1♣ 1♠ Pass, West's turn to bid.

Have I interpreted the laws correctly?

[mycroft]

Yes, that's how the laws read.

And, if E/W declares (say it goes all pass), there are no lead penalties.

Both sides have offended, and that's what the laws say to do.

The player got a problem with that? "If you'd called me instead of passing over the double, it would be a different ruling. If you "knew you could accept" any bad call, now you know better."

I would suggest (no matter how you phrase it here, or as training for other directors, or in the bar after) that instead of phrasing the ruling the way I just did, you say "the Laws say that once you pass over the inadmissible double, all calls are cancelled and the auction proceeds as if there was no irregularity. Please continue" and, if necessary "Had you noticed and called the director before you passed, the ruling would be different. But now, please continue." No blame, no personal opinion, no hint of "if you want to make your own ruling, I'm happy to smile and nod when it blows up in your face" - unless it's the player who's just as aggressive to you or to other players, or who you know does play those games and it's time to make it clear you know.

I've been known to be passive-aggressive, occasionally, in the past(*). I try not to be, at least not as often, now. A new director, an unusual situation, in a field we're trying to train to call the director when there's a problem? Yeah, probably not the time.

(*) Still reminded all these years later of one of blackshoe's responses: "nothing passive about that one, mycroft". I'll cop to that, occasionally, too.

[jillybean]

Funny, this was one the the rulings the players did get correct. South was saying, "oh, we can just let West put his X back

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2024-August-14, 19:32, said:

Yes, that's how the laws read.

And, if E/W declares (say it goes all pass), there are no lead penalties.

Both sides have offended, and that's what the laws say to do.

The player got a problem with that? "If you'd called me instead of passing over the double, it would be a different ruling. If you "knew you could accept" any bad call, now you know better."

Sometimes players don't even realize that an irregularity has occurred. In my experience, that's the most common reason why illegal calls are accepted.

In the case of insufficient bids, it's straightforward since players are explicitly allowed to condone them, so if they call immediately it's treated equivalently to calling the TD, who offers them this option, and they take it.

But inadmissable doubles and redoubles are different, you're not allowed to condone them, so we have to roll back.

[mycroft]

Oh absolutely. And if they don't notice, then of course we're not going to be snarky. If they did notice and thought "I can always accept their bid", then, as I said, and as I might even say, "now you know."

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-August-14, 18:28, said:

1♣ 1♠ Pass Double
Pass

North dealer and opens 1C

You are called to the table and find these bidding cards on the tables.
West has made an inadmissible double, but North has accepted the double with pass.

Law 36 suggests the inadmissible call (the double) and all subsequent calls are cancelled.
The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and the auction proceeds as if there was no irregularity.
There are no lead restrictions.

The auction reverts to
1♣ 1♠ Pass, West's turn to bid.

Have I interpreted the laws correctly?

No, you have IMHO not interpreted the laws correctly, see 36B3 about lead restrictions.

[jillybean]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
1S was the final contract.

[mycroft]

36A applies to the auction as presented, not 36B.

36A applies when doubler's LHO acts before the director is called, which happened when opener passed 1♠x. As such, "The lead restrictions in 26A do not apply". To either withdrawn call as I read it.

36B3 only applies in the normal case, when the inadmissible double is not "accepted".

[pescetom]

Mycroft is right, of course: I missed the Pass after Double.

In my experience (and yes I've done it as a player) the whole table jumps on you immediately if you try to negative double your partner, I don't think I ever saw a 36A.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2024-August-18, 06:47, said:

Mycroft is right, of course: I missed the Pass after Double.

In my experience (and yes I've done it as a player) the whole table jumps on you immediately if you try to negative double your partner, I don't think I ever saw a 36A.

The're moments I wish I could.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2024-August-18, 08:47, said:

The're moments I wish I could.

I made a negative double (of my partner's spades overcall) as the first call of the first hand in a national tournament. The assistant Director (a friend of mine) arrived and was convinced I had done it on purpose to put him in difficulty But it was just lack of concentration which led to making what looked like a logical descriptive call.

[mycroft]

Auction of the week (not in handviewer for obvious reasons):

1♠-X-2♥-p
p-X-p-X.

Replaced with pass. No, I don't know the result.