The deal was played and resulted in the Declarer taking six tricks, a loss of 600. The question is whether West's claim should be sustained or this score counted, it being a part of the case stated that the declaration which was the subject of complaint was made inadvertently.
Decision
Law 54 provides that "A player cannot redouble his partner's double," but does not penalize such action. The prohibition is intended to prevent an increase in the value of the tricks and a penalty is not attached, as the additional double is generally a careless act, not likely to materially benefit the offending player.
It goes without saying that any such double is most irregular, and any suggestion of strength thereby conveyed will not be used by an honorable partner. The same comment applies to the remark, sometimes made, "Partner, I would have doubled if you had not."
A player repeatedly guilty of such conduct, or of intentionally violating any other law, should be reprimanded, and, if the offense be continued, ostracized.
In the case under consideration, this question does not arise, as it is conceded that the act was simply an inadvertence. Even, however, had its bona fides been questioned, the decision would of necessity be that the score be counted, as the laws do not provide a penalty for the offense.
Case 7
The bidding in an Auction deal was as follows:—
| 1st Round | 2d Round | 3d Round | 4th Round | |
| North | 1 Club | 1 Heart | 2 Hearts | No |
| East | 1 Diamond | No | Double | No |
| South | No | No | 3 Clubs | |
| West | No | 2 Diamonds | No |
South claimed that his partner, having abandoned the Club declaration, he (South) became the real Club bidder, and, having made the final declaration, was entitled to play the combined hands.