Do you agree with the ruling?

[mycroft]

Yes, I would see X-and-NT as "I actually have a 20-count, partner; I know where all the points are, too. In that bad hand of yours, do you have a conceivable entry? If so, we can make at least one more trick than the field, and almost certainly game."

[blackshoe]

I didn't think the 2NT artificial cuebid was a tool used by the person who had made a strong double. I thought it was only used by advancer after an overcall.

 

Yes, I would see X-and-NT as "I actually have a 20-count, partner; I know where all the points are, too. In that bad hand of yours, do you have a conceivable entry? If so, we can make at least one more trick than the field, and almost certainly game."

Agree with Mycroft. I was thinking the opening bid was in a suit. My bad.

[vigfus]

PASS is certanly an LA

E/W were misinformed, but were not damaged. North was honest to bid 2♠, that gave E/W extra chance to gain on that board.

[RMB1]

To grab a phrase from another topic

I don't think we've answered the OP's questions yet.

 

Or to reword the topic title: does anyone disagree with the ruling (table result stands)?

 

To adjust we would need to decide that

- some bid at 3♠ or above was a logical alternative (because I think Pass is suggested over 3♠); OR

- some bid between 2NT and 3♥ was a logical alternative AND was suggested by the unauthorised information.