We have some players who are careless when sitting North (and/or East!), and fail to put an X against a contract that has been doubled, though the score would be correct for a doubled contract.
I have read that it is normal (horrible cop-out word!) to accept that the score is right, and if appropriate, treat the contract as doubled.
In an effort to get players to be more precise when writing in travellers, I only award a 'doubled' score if there is an X, and have put a note to tjis effect on the club website. Is this permissible - although not an EBU club and in Spain, we strive to follow all WBF and EBU laws.
Comments
" ... if there is a discrepancy on the traveller between the numerical score and the number of tricks noted, it is customary for the numerical score to stand as long as that is not blatantly wrong, e.g. one off vulnerable cannot result in a score of -50 but must be corrected to -100."
This indicates that the stated score is pre-eminent, not the stated result ... e.g. if the traveller said 3S= for +110 and it was at all reasonable that the contract could have been in clubs or diamonds rather than spades then the 110 would stand and not be corrected to 140.
I can forsee all kinds of problems and arguments arsing from presuming the score to be correct and then finding a contract that matches the score. In my experience, players rarely write down the wrong contract but often write down the wrong score.
However I understand that some computer scoring systems now require the scorer to enter the contract and result, so I try to be helpful to the scorer and enter the result as well as the contract.
http://www.ebu.co.uk/cmh-data/pages/Scoring Errors, Corrections and Correction Periods.pdf
Players can often be careless with the contract not only omitting whether it is doubled but also getting the wrong denomination. It's one thing Bridgemates or similar significantly reduce.