EW are playing 5-card majors where a 2♣ response to 1♥/♠ is made on all GF hands. So 2♦ shows at least 5+♥ and at most an invitational hand. Usually it would contain 6♥ if weak.
South lead ♠2 and declarer took it with ♠K and lead a heart to the ♥K and ♥A. Now South reguired further information about the bidding and was told that 3♥ was at least 3-card support and invitational to game. Now South took the ♦A and gave his partner a ♠ ruff and declarer took the rest of the tricks.
When East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system, South called the TD and asked to change his defense as he was never informed that East could have this hand.
TD said that South got the correct explanation and the score stands.
This was appealed and the Appeals Committee made the following ruling:
EW play a system that is uncommon and that most would be unfamiliar with. Its in their responsibility to inform NS of all possibilities and make sure they understand the mechanism. EW never tried to explain what possibilities East had, so South had no chance to play East for the hand he had. East on the other hand picked 3♥ out of possible bids, knowing he would promise 3+ hearts at the time he bid, so this was not a case of misexplanation of the EW agreement of the bid, but more of too little explanation of possibilities East had.
South was allowed to change defense 1/5 of the time and 4/5 of the time Declarer makes 10 tricks.
What is your view of the rulings of the TD and the AC?
Sveinn Runar Eiriksson