c_corgi

If I "transfer to spades" then I bid hearts with the expectation of my partner bidding spades. If partner asks me to do so, that is what I do. As far as it goes, North's explanation seems OK. In fact it is better disclosure than "partner has a hand which wants to declare 4 of my major", because it explains the (automatic) mechanism by which it will happen. It is not "full" disclosure, because it doesnt clarify if partner has options to make opener the declarer in his own major, and is worse if (e.g.) there are options for responder to introduce a suit of his own over 4M. However, while not perfect the infraction seems fairly negligible and is irrelevant to the result, which came from E/W's culpable mistinterpretation and/or SEWoG. Applying PP to N/S in this situation seems like an invitation to secretary birds to claim damage too often, a high price to pay for a laudable attempt to induce better disclosure.

Even if we conclude that there was misinformation, the auction would still have proceeded as at the table until the point when East bid 3D. East would then have logical alternatives of X and pass, the latter being dictated due to the UI. So the score still reverts to 3C by S (edit). I am not sure what the position is regarding the possible MI. It is hardly abnormal to be more interested in finding major fits than minor, and they may have more detailed ways of showing H&S over 2S than H&minor. Or maybe 2S could have been the first part of a GF auction with 5+S should N have bid on over South's 3D. The exact wording could create a different context. Also, it seems plausible that West's questions (apart from being inappropriate given that he hardly has an action over 3C but not 2H) were spade-centric, this being in part the source of the confusion.

I think you are being much too kind to the 3D bidder. West is marked with some heart length, but not enough to overcall 2NT, so E/W are unlikely to have game, and may well not have the balance of strength. It also looks like a misfit to at least some extent and North was likely intending to pass South's 3D if that had been his second suit, implying diamond length. East's club holding is not promising either. 3D is quite likely to result in a large penalty against a part-score, possibly without even finding their best fit. I certainly don't allow 3D. The most likely ways to let in 3NT appear to be a club lead or covering both dummy's heart pips. Neither of these is well advised IMO, but not close to a SEWoG (well, maybe the latter at Bermuda Bowl level!)

EricK's arguments appear self-evidently correct. If, as it seems, the laws/regulations do not support them, then IMO the laws/regulations need to be changed accordingly.

I don't think 3NT is the obvious game from North's point of view. If a forcing 3H was available it would be automatic. It may be that he was catering for South to hold D rather than H+D, and it would be interesting to know if there was any UI which suggested this.

While it would be nice to find out more about North's thought process before ruling, given the information available I cannot see past 4SX by North down lots. However, it looks like West's final pass and East's 3S are both clear SEWoGs. From West's point of view, East chose to bid a natural GF 3S despite knowledge of the bad breaks. Any sympathy with West's pass based on the suspected misfit emphasises that East should double given that he 'knows for sure' about the misfit. So E/W keep the table score.

I agree with gnasher regarding the damage issue. West's argument is that his defence against "strong, artificial 2C openings" varies according to the exact composition, analagous to playing a different defence to 1NT depending on the range. It seems optimistic to play alternative defences in a situation where the opponents agreements are likely to be insufficiently defined for you to determine which one applies. In this situation for instance, it seems that N/S do not really know whether the hand is a valid 2C opener; what are the borderline hands, the inclusion of which in the 2C range will cause you to switch to defending against a 'weak' bid? Do you expect the opponents to have such a detailed agreement?

I wonder what N/S think is the correct way to bid the hand. Auctions beginning 1C seem unlikely to paint a complete picture. They have to try something! If they do form an agreement to open 2C with these hands and describe it as "extended rule of 25", doesnt this suggest that they go out of their way to open 2C with hands that qualify, rather than occasionally - even reluctantly - opening 2C with extremely high playing strength freaks?

What are the criteria for deciding whether proper disclosure over and above 23+ balanced or GF? It seems that this is the root of the problem. If there are no official criteria, then it seems unreasonable to impose any. The standards for what qualifies as permissable for such a 'strong' opening appear quite rigorous in themselves, and since this hand qualifies under 'rule of 25' the wording of the regulation suggests that proper disclosure is not relevant (being pertinent only to the 'clear cut tricks' clause), so misinformation seems out of the question. Regarding EBU terminology of 'Forcing' meaning 'forcing through strength', I interpret this as opposed to forcing but potentially part of an escape/signoff mechanism. In this case the game forcing nature of the hand is based on strength (its playing strength) and not subject to Orange Book 3B6. Is this correct?