[dcohio]

My partner opens 1C. RHO puts out a 1C call. When we say insufficient, RHO thinks then tries to double. We call the director.

Director tells RHO that the bid can be made sufficient, or any other call she makes bars her partner. She puts the double back and passes. Director allows this.

Shouldn't the double be made to stand and we could play 1Cx?

[blackshoe]

Well, first off, why weren't you calling the director while RHO was thinking? Had you called then, as you were supposed to do, RHO would (should, anyway) not have done anything, since the laws specifically enjoin him to do nothing until the TD has ruled (see Law 9).

The director should have determined whether X would be a permitted change under Law 27B1{b} (highly doubtful). If it is not, then the double is cancelled. Offender must make a permitted substitution, and his partner will be required to pass throughout the auction (Law 27B3). There may be lead restrictions (Law 26) and Law 23 may require a score adjustment.

The offender may replace the IB with pass (Law 27B2), but his partner will be required to pass throughout, and Laws 26 and 23 apply. So no, you're not going to get to play 1♣ doubled.

[mycroft]

And explicitly, unless "double" shows "I have a 1C opener", it would not be permissible as a "bar partner" call. This is an explicit lock on a simple dodge where in order to make a takeout double, you double; in order to make a penalty double, you IB and replace with a double, barring partner (Law 27B3). In fact, as the double was made before the TD was called, it is cancelled and RHO's partner is barred throughout, no matter what sufficiency (same law).

Having said that, if they play (1♣)-2♣ as anything but clubs (which is highly likely), then even without the attempted double, "make the bid sufficient (in clubs)" would also bar partner (L27B1a, corrected bid not "incontrovertably not artificial").

[pran]

dcohio, on 2011-July-07, 15:26, said:

My partner opens 1C. RHO puts out a 1C call. When we say insufficient, RHO thinks then tries to double. We call the director.

Director tells RHO that the bid can be made sufficient, or any other call she makes bars her partner. She puts the double back and passes. Director allows this.

Shouldn't the double be made to stand and we could play 1Cx?

Of course not, Law 27B3 is the (only) applicable law here.
But with my (sad) experience in a recent similar thread I am just curious if we shall soon see a comment claiming to use Law 25B?

[mrdct]

I'm not sure that I agree with any of the above.

We need to know what the bidding box regulations are in your jurisdiction. Bidding box regulations vary significantly from one place to another and will need to be consulted to determine whether or not the 2nd 1♣ bid was in fact a bid pursuant to those regulations.

It's quite possible, and would usually be the case in my country, that an extraction of the 1♣ card from the box would not be treated as a bid and could be put back in the box a substituted with whatever (including double) with the only implication being some UI to partner that you fiddled with a bidding card.

[pran]

mrdct, on 2011-July-08, 04:52, said:

I'm not sure that I agree with any of the above.

We need to know what the bidding box regulations are in your jurisdiction. Bidding box regulations vary significantly from one place to another and will need to be consulted to determine whether or not the 2nd 1♣ bid was in fact a bid pursuant to those regulations.

It's quite possible, and would usually be the case in my country, that an extraction of the 1♣ card from the box would not be treated as a bid and could be put back in the box a substituted with whatever (including double) with the only implication being some UI to partner that you fiddled with a bidding card.

This is of course correct.
I read OP as the second 1♣ bid had been made, i.e. the action was completed with the bid card placed on the table.

If (according to regulation) the 1♣ bid was not legally made we have no insufficient bid and no case for Law 27 (nor for Law 25). All that remains in that case is the UI considerations.

[barmar]

I have a feeling mrdct misread "puts out a 1♣ call" as "pulls out a 1♣ card", and interpreted that to mean that it was pulled out of the box but not placed on the table.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-July-08, 04:52, said:

It's quite possible, and would usually be the case in my country, that an extraction of the 1♣ card from the box would not be treated as a bid and could be put back in the box a substituted with whatever (including double) with the only implication being some UI to partner that you fiddled with a bidding card.

On the other hand, in my country the bid is considered made if it has cleared the bidding box. Do tell your NBO and then maybe someone can answers your question.