Re: Change of call after illegal call
"Timothy N. Hill" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2016 Jul 13, at 07:44, Matthias Berghaus <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 13.07.2016 um 11:26 schrieb Tony Musgrove: > >> ... suppose I double partner (illegal, but have seen him play before :)) ... As a player I’ve seen a joke inadmissible double a few times (“I eked out a minimum raise, partner took me seriously, and I’ve seen partner play before”), but I don’t recall ever taking a director call on one of these. > ... [Law] 26 could apply (anybody got an example where 26 would apply?) ... Sure. I’ve taken perhaps a dozen director calls over the years for inadmissible doubles. They’re usually takeout requests showing the unbid suits. Sometimes they’re redundant penalty doubles (a bid too far, Double, Pass, Double). Law 26 applies, but how? Here’s one I remember well: One Diamond, Pass, Double (for takeout), “Director, please,” responder’s inadmissible Double changed to One Spade, Pass, Pass (mandatory), Two Hearts, All Pass. 26A2 should be clearer about the lead restrictions after offender’s withdrawn call specified two or three suits and his legal calls specified one or two, but not all, of those suits. Following what I think is the intended meaning, the first time opener was on lead I allowed declarer to require or prohibit a diamond or to require or prohibit a heart. Opener had a 19-HCP 4=3=2=4 and responder an 8-HCP 5=4=1=3. The room went down one in four spades. Our heroes got the only plus score. No reason to apply Law 23. Score up a top. :) I’ve usually judged a redundant penalty double as not “solely related to a specified suit or suits” (26B), but I suppose some redundant penalty doubles could be lead-directing (26A). Tim _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml