[jdonn]

Trinidad, on Apr 8 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 5 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

Well, first of all, your comment to North regarding how she might have bid her hand has nothing to do with the ruling. 

Oh yes, it does. The TD is supposed to make sure what the actual meaning of Double is. Asking North why she bid this way is an excellent way to figure out what North idea about the meaning of the double is.

She could have responded that double shows majors or a good hand.

She could have responded that Dbl is the only forcing call. That implies that it is the bid to make with a strong hand (since North evidently didn't know that she could have passed).

All kind of good things could have happened to the TD. That makes it a very good reason to use this kind of a question when trying to establish the facts.

Rik

It wasn't a question. Phil offered a suggestion. In other words I think Blackshoe was referring to the bolded part of this:

Phil, on Apr 5 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

I asked the North player why she bid that way and she said that she didn't know how to bid with a hand that strong over the strong club. I said she might have passed.

[blackshoe]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing about the question the TD asked ("I asked the North player why she bid this way,") What I said was that the comment ("You could have passed.") had nothing to do with the ruling. I stand by that. I will go further - it is inappropriate for a TD to make such a comment in the middle of a ruling. The job is to apply the laws, not to teach players how to bid.

[ArtK78]

Agreed. And the perceived criticism of North by the TD may poison the rest of the discussion of the situation.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on Apr 8 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Agreed. And the perceived criticism of North by the TD may poison the rest of the discussion of the situation.

Exactly!