[gordontd]

Have you told us what was the TD's ruling that the AC upheld?

It seems to me that the double of 2♥ is alertable, but I can see no connection between that and the inferior score that EW earned by virtue of West failing to follow his own system. I cannot see that anything would have been any different if East had a suitable hand and made a takeout double.

[jdeegan]

I think the relevant issue here is W's claim that he/she/it would have bid 2♠ had they known RHO's double of 2 ♥ was for penalty. This is an obvious bald-faced lie. Pard said he/she/it liked ♥ and W held J9x.

[bluejak]

bluejak, on 2012-May-24, 16:19, said:

It was ruled that the result stood, because the failure of the 1NT overcaller to find out what the double was plus the fact that he passed a pass/correct bid with four spades and three hearts was a clear breach of Orange book 5H1.

gordontd, on 2012-May-25, 02:31, said:

Have you told us what was the TD's ruling that the AC upheld?

Yes!

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-23, 04:51, said:

No, there is no damage because of the MI. Did West seriously think that North was going to bid over a takeout double? In that case South wouldn't have any hearts, East wouldn't have many hearts (else he would have bid 2♠, 2♦ or something fancy (XX or 2♣)). Since there are 13 hearts in the deck, where does he think they would be?

Puzzled ...
If RHO bids a suit and, sitting over the bid, you penalty-double, then that is more likely to be the final contract than if you takeout-double
If an opponent makes an unalerted call (high-lighted in local regulations) and you fail to protect yourself by asking, that shouldn't be grounds for an adverse ruling

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2012-May-25, 21:37, said:

Puzzled ...
If RHO bids a suit and, sitting over the bid, you penalty-double, then that is more likely to be the final contract than if you takeout-double

That -by itself- is correct. But there is more to it: If South really had a takeout double, then where are the hearts? West has three, East has asked West to bid 2♠ if he doesn't have a heart suit, so East has 3-4 hearts, South has 0-2 for his supposed takeout double and North will have: 13 - 3 - (3 to 4) - (0 to 2) = between 4 and 7 hearts. With such a hand, North is not going to honor partner's request to bid a suit. He will convert the takeout double into a penalty double.

So, it hardly matters what South's double means. West knows that North will pass if West passes or West knows that North will almost certainly pass if West passes.
West's argument is: "If I would have been 99% sure that North would pass, I would have bid 2♠. Now, I was only 90% sure that North would pass, hence it was a good idea to pass.". That is hardly a good argument.

If you add to that the fact that West was violating his system by passing, you will conclude rapidly that the failure to alert was not the cause of the damage.

Rik

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2012-May-25, 21:37, said:

Puzzled ...
If RHO bids a suit and, sitting over the bid, you penalty-double, then that is more likely to be the final contract than if you takeout-double
If an opponent makes an unalerted call (high-lighted in local regulations) and you fail to protect yourself by asking, that shouldn't be grounds for an adverse ruling

Of course not, by itself, just that it is with the actual hand.