[lmilne]

Is there any procedure for what a director should do when the opponents can't agree what the final contract was?

Law 85, or is there something better?

In this case it was whether the final contract was doubled or not.

[blackshoe]

Law 85 specifies the procedure. You listen to what the four players say, ask if any of them is keeping a private score, examine said score(s), and use your best judgment. In this case, you might ask what the auction was, and who supposedly doubled. Look at the hands, and see if you think the double would be reasonable. You might poll, as well. BTW, if it's 3-1 for double (or not doubled), generally go with that. The problem is when it's two-two.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-04, 23:59, said:

Law 85 specifies the procedure. You listen to what the four players say, ask if any of them is keeping a private score, examine said score(s), and use your best judgment. In this case, you might ask what the auction was, and who supposedly doubled. Look at the hands, and see if you think the double would be reasonable. You might poll, as well. BTW, if it's 3-1 for double (or not doubled), generally go with that. The problem is when it's two-two.

I agree with all of this. It can also be worth watching them play a few hands, discreetly, as it may give some clues as to their normal practice. If all else fails, my experience is that it's more likely for players to fail to notice a double than to imagine one that was never there.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-04, 23:59, said:

Law 85 specifies the procedure. You listen to what the four players say, ask if any of them is keeping a private score, examine said score(s), and use your best judgment. In this case, you might ask what the auction was, and who supposedly doubled. Look at the hands, and see if you think the double would be reasonable. You might poll, as well. BTW, if it's 3-1 for double (or not doubled), generally go with that. The problem is when it's two-two.

Unfond memories revisited. Such an occurrence befell me during my first tournament session, and as suggested I have a few thoughts on the matter. When scoring a board I recorded the contract of 3N at which point W and then E protested** that the contract was 2N. The TD asked maybe a couple questions and ruled the contract 3N. I am confident it came out that S [the bidder of 3N] had used a soft voice but I do not recollect whether it came out there had been particular pause and that his voice was not garbled.

What I believe to have been the source of consternation was that the TD did not enumerate his finding of the facts nor how he arrived at his conclusion. In other words, it is a dereliction of duty to merely investigate, the TD must report on his investigation and explain his reasoning. Perhaps if he had my day would not have been ruined by worry from the opponents' appeal of the ruling.

** E did not defend to his best advantage

regards
axman