Re: Change of call after illegal call

"Sven Pran" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.games.bridge.laws
Message-ID <[email protected]>
> Timothy N. Hill
[...]
> 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 26A2 should be clearer about the lead restrictions after offender’s withdrawn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.
 
[Sven Pran] 
In the EBL commentary to the bridge laws of 1987 we find (still relevant):
quote
The Director must consider the meaning of the call that was withdrawn. He must place it in one of two categories - either:
(a) the call related to a single specified suit, or to more than one suit all of which were specified; or
(b) it did not relate to any suit, or, if it was suit-related, one or more of the suits in question was an unspecified suit.
Examples: a 2NT overcall showing both minors is in category (a) but a cue-bid showing spades and a minor is in category (b).
unquote
In my experience a takeout double hardly ever shows a specific set of suits (and no other suit) among the unbid suits so it should clearly be in category (b) above. In my opinion you should have ruled Law 26B and not Law 26A (avoiding any difficulty).
[...]
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.