[sanst]

East is dealer and the biding goes:

1♦-1♠-pass-double-pass-1NT-a.p.

North doubles partners 1♠, South bids 1NT and the contract makes for +1, a bad result for EW. East has asked about the double ('negative') but only after the play remarks that something has gone wrong since you can't double your partner's bid. The TD is called, but what should he decide? Let the result stand and maybe give both sides a PP/DP or cancel the result since it has been reached by a inadmissible double? Law 36 decrees that the double and all subsequent calls should be canceled and 'the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity', but I don't think that's practical once the hand has been played and a result is obtained. An artificial score seems not right, either, because there is a result.

[pran]

 sanst, on 2016-July-21, 13:51, said:

East is dealer and the biding goes:

1♦-1♠-pass-double-pass-1NT-a.p.

North doubles partners 1♠, South bids 1NT and the contract makes for +1, a bad result for EW. East has asked about the double ('negative') but only after the play remarks that something has gone wrong since you can't double your partner's bid. The TD is called, but what should he decide? Let the result stand and maybe give both sides a PP/DP or cancel the result since it has been reached by a inadmissible double? Law 36 decrees that the double and all subsequent calls should be canceled and 'the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity', but I don't think that's practical once the hand has been played and a result is obtained. An artificial score seems not right, either, because there is a result.

At least you have found Law 36!

This is one of the laws under which the Director may never under any circumstance deviate from the prescribed procedure.
Which means that every call in this auction beginning with the inadmissible double is cancelled and void.

Had no card been played on the board then the auction should just revert to North who makes whatever call he prefers (without any restriction) after which the auction is completed as if no error had occurred, and the board subsequently played out.

Here the Director is free to rule that a "normal" result can no longer be obtained (and I think he should so rule) since the board had already been played in a contract that is void.

The consequence of such ruling is that both sides are at fault (North for making an inadmissible double and East for bidding on after this error) and receive an artificial adjusted score of 40%. (The fact that a result had been obtained on the board is irrelevant since that result was void.)

In theory the Director just might rule that the contract shall be as played in 1NT if North/South can convince him (and East/West) that they beyond doubt would have reached exactly this contract in a normal auction.