[dickiegera]

---

When north bid 2♠ she also added the comment:

"I am not sure but I think 2♦ is asking me to bid a major"

The bidding continued with East doubling 2♠ and North rebidding
3♦ , which she held 7 of them. The bidding now passed out.

I called director but director said it was a case of mistaken bid and I should accept it.

My complaint was about the comment made, not about failure to alert?
What should I have done?

Thank you

[barmar]

It's not North's bidding that's in question -- he isn't in possession of UI, he can do what he likes. It's South's bidding that is at issue.

What is their actual agreement? I'm guessing it does show the majors, since North has 7 diamonds and West presumably has at least 2, and South wouldn't be bidding a 4-card suit naturally (unless they play something like DONT, where 2♦ shows diamonds and a major). So why did the TD say that 2♠ was a misbid?

South is in possession of UI, that North isn't sure of their agreement. In order to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of this UI, I think he has to assume his partner doesn't remember the agreement, and treat the 2♠ bid as showing a spade suit rather than just a preference. Since South presumably has more spades than diamonds, he should be presumed to go back to spades; the result should be adjusted to 3♠, possibly doubled (it would help to see the EW hands), down however many.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2014-February-27, 19:02, said:

It's not North's bidding that's in question -- he isn't in possession of UI, he can do what he likes. It's South's bidding that is at issue. What is their actual agreement? I'm guessing it does show the majors, since North has 7 diamonds and West presumably has at least 2, and South wouldn't be bidding a 4-card suit naturally (unless they play something like DONT, where 2♦ shows diamonds and a major). So why did the TD say that 2♠ was a misbid?

Perhaps the TD was referring to the 2♦ bid

[barmar]

More reason to need to know what the actual agreement was and what everyone's hand is.

[dickiegera]

barmar, on 2014-February-27, 19:22, said:

More reason to need to know what the actual agreement was and what everyone's hand is.

---

Complete hands and bidding

There were no agreements N/S, at least none shown on cc or stated

[blackshoe]

Did you tell the director that you objected to the comment?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-27, 22:35, said:

Did you tell the director that you objected to the comment?

The comment by whom? I object to the comment by the TD and to the comment by North.

There is strong evidence (according to the OP) that there was no such agreement about 2D being anything other than a Diamond suit. North's gratuitous speculation is a violation of more than one rule. It is telling his partner that his 2S bid is a hedge. But, North cannot have enough Spades --having passed before--to make a Pass by South of 2♠ a L.A.

If North is inexperienced, he should be warned; otherwise a PP might be considered.

[barmar]

In the OP you said North bid 3♦. In your diagram, you have South bidding it. That changes things significantly.

[barmar]

With the corrected auction, I allow the 3♦ bid. If North had a spade suit that could play opposite a singleton, he would have bid it directly over 1NT. Meanwhile, South's diamonds are longer than he's shown with the original 2♦ bid. There's no LA to 3♦, so the UI is irrelevant.

[mycroft]

...and as long as there was no obvious response from South to the comment, North has no UI, and can freely pass 3♦ if she chooses to guess that way.

Having said that, yes, it's the comment that needs to be addressed - just Alert (which, of course, has the same issues, but isn't quite as blatant) and "you know you put your partner in a real bind by doing that, and if she didn't have such an obvious pull, we'd rule it back to 2♠X - and it would be your fault for the comment, not hers for the pull-or-not-pull or mine for the ruling." And not the "mistaken bid" issue.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-28, 02:55, said:

The comment by whom? I object to the comment by the TD and to the comment by North.

There is strong evidence (according to the OP) that there was no such agreement about 2D being anything other than a Diamond suit. North's gratuitous speculation is a violation of more than one rule. It is telling his partner that his 2S bid is a hedge. But, North cannot have enough Spades --having passed before--to make a Pass by South of 2♠ a L.A.

If North is inexperienced, he should be warned; otherwise a PP might be considered.

My question was addressed to the OP, who said he objected to North's comment.

[dickiegera]

barmar, on 2014-February-28, 11:13, said:

In the OP you said North bid 3♦. In your diagram, you have South bidding it. That changes things significantly.

My original post was wrong. South was the one to rebid 3♦

Thank you

[Bbradley62]

Since the director's response makes it pretty clear that you're not going to get any satisfaction from him, you might report the hand to the Recorder, so that North can be monitored for habitually making such comments.

[blackshoe]

North needs to be educated. IMO the director might attempt that, as Mycroft suggested, or a recorder memo might be filed, as Bbradley suggested. I like both, in fact.

It's too bad we don't have a recorder memo procedure in place for bad or badly handled rulings.