Inadvertent designation is an offense?

I had a routine application of Law 45C4(b) ("... may change an unintended designation ... without pause for thought"), except that the next player had managed to play a card.

Declarer called for ♦10 from dummy and then said he meant ♣10, he said he had been looking at the dummy's clubs at the time, but RHO had followed to ♦10 with ♦7. I was content that the designation had been inadvertent and ruled that the ♦7 can be withdrawn (and must be, if RHO has a club) and that ♦7 was authorised to the LHO and unauthorised to declarer, and to call me back if the defence felt damaged.

Then I checked this in the law book, which said what I thought it said, but Law 45C4(b) ends with "see Laws 47D and 16D1". Law 16D says that withdrawn actions are authorised to non-offenders (16D1) and unauthorised to offenders (16D2). Elsewhere in the laws, there are references to Law 16D or specifically to Law 16D2, but this is the only reference to Law 16D1. I don't understand why the laws have gone out of their way to specify just Law 16D1 here.

• Do the laws think there is no offending side in Law 45C4(b)?
• Specifically, was information arising from ♦7 authorised to declarer?

Alerting doubles in the EBU

The EBU has decided to keep its current regulations for alerting of doubles. There are a number of issues with the current regulations which players and TDs have to be aware of.

Undiscussed doubles

A Brighton in 2007, a player doubled the final contract after the opponents had bid three suit and partner had overcalled in the fourth. Partner decided the double was penalties, based on general bridge knowledge rather than any partnership agreement, and did not alert. The opponents felt misinformed but got no satisfaction from the TD, the AC, or the commentators in the EBU Appeals booklet.

EBU regulations say that this double was alertable unless it was takeout but elsewhere that inference from general bridge knowledge are not alertable. However, general bridge knowledge often says that doubles are penalties, either through bridge logic or as a default. Does the regulation about general bridge knowledge apply to doubles? If so, should the regulations on doubles indicate that the meaning of an unalerted double is either "takeout" or "no partnership agreement".

Lightner doubles

Doubles of the final suit (slam) contract, which ask for a lead of a suit (not trumps) are alertable. This may not have been the intention but it is agreed that this is what the regulations require. But sometimes it is unclear if a double should be Lightner, or there is no partnership agreement only general bridge knowledge. This leads to the same problem as "Undiscussed doubles".

I'll post this now, but there will be a follow-up on doubles of pass-or-correct and preference bids, and 1m-(1H)-X. I also intend to blog on the subject of butlering: my "barking method" for calculating par and a modified scale (half the imps of twice the difference scale).