drater

Thanks for the replies. To try and clarify a couple of points (or admit not knowing the answers): - I don't know if the director offered to allow a change to the opening lead or the bidding - E-W had no issue with the lead or wanting to change it (I think it was a trump but certainly was not AC) - the defence to 2SX was not optimum, as you have inferred - East was claiming that he might pass if he had been given the correct information - X was still for takeout if 2D did not guarantee spades It felt to me, although I didn't state it in my original post, that E-W were seeking redress based purely on them having got a bad board through bad luck and/or bad judgement and/or bad defence as opposed to anything to do with the incorrect explanation. However, I am very interested in views for my own interest and learning.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt98hq7dajt94c98&w=sak75hj862dq2cq32&n=sj632hat95d83ckj6&e=s4hk43dk765cat754&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1npp2dp2sdppp]399|300[/hv] 1NT = 12-14 X of 2S = takeout 2D = diamonds and a major Before East doubled 2S he asked for an explanation of 2D. North explained 2D as spades and another (Asptro). Before the opening lead was faced, South corrected the explanation of 2D to showing diamonds and a major (Meckwell). E-W called the Director and were told to play the hand out and to call him back at the end if they felt they'd been damaged. N-S agreement in defending a 12-14 1NT was Asptro by non-passed hand and Meckwell by passed hand. Result at the table was 2SX making 8 tricks. E-W claim if they had been given the correct explanation then East would not have doubled 2S for takeout. I would be interested in views on whether there was any damage to E-W and what the ruling should be in this case. Hope I've provided sufficient information but if not then please let me know.