Posted 2012-January-13, 15:25
schulken: I like your examples of when "insufficient bid replaced by double" could stand. But I don't feel that your example of when it isn't is the right logic.
To recap: you have (1♣)-1♣. It doesn't matter what the hand actually is, just what the potential meaning of 1♣ (assuming pass first, of course) and the actual meaning of double are. The law says "[a] call that in the Directors opinion has the same meaning* as or a more precise meaning* than the insufficient bid", not a hand that would make both calls. The idea is that if being allowed to make "both calls" would show fewer hands than making the legal, correct call - that there were "some" hands that would make the double that wouldn't open 1♣, in this example, so with the (authorized*, as we use L27D, not L16) knowledge that partner would have bid 1♣ and now doubled, that restricts (quite strongly, I would think) the hands that partner could have - then we don't allow it.
In the ACBL we are told to take a somewhat liberal view of this, especially in situations where partner is a limited hand (so, for instance, 2NT-2♣, we're expected to allow a 3♣ "standard Stayman" replacement, even though there are definitely hands that would bid 3♣ that would not bid 2♣ after 1NT (say, a random 4=2=4=3 5-count, which would pass); but we won't allow a 3♣ "puppet Stayman" replacement, because the hands that would bid 3♣ that would not bid 2♣ after 1NT are non-trivial.
In other jurisdictions, other opinions of the Law and the footnotes apply.
Sure, listen to the arguments. But the hand's irrelevant, and it's highly unlikely that "all" hands that would open 1♣ would have a takeout double of 1♣!
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)