ICEmachine, on 2011-March-18, 12:32, said:
In the firs post I gave the possible alternatives as East clearly had to choose among them. He chose 3♥ because he didnt want to bid 2N because of 2 reasons.
It was NF and he didnt have a stopper in ♦. As strange as those 2 facts may seem, those were his reasons. So given that, then he had no bid except 3♥, as he had too many points for 2♥.
This post raises an interesting point that hasn't been discussed as of yet:
So far, the majority of the discussion of this hand has assumed that that
fell into a systemic "hole". More simply, we (I ????) assumed that East had no bid available to describe this hand type.
This latest post suggests something a subtle difference:
In fact, E/W may have a systemic bid to show the hand in question.
2NT is the systemic agreement with this hand.
In this case, East chose to violate system and decided to bid 3♥
rather than 3N.
The ACBL has (used to have?) a concept known as a "deviation". The ACBL felt that disclosure structures required some flexibily.
The regulatory structure explained that a disclosed agreement does not constitute a promise and that players had the right to (occasionally) deviate from their agreements:
Opening a 1♠
with a strong 4 card suit
Opening a 15-17 HCP NT with an exceptional 14 count (or downgrading a shitty 18 count)
Its been a long time since I played in Iceland and I have no clue whether the Icelandic bridge system includes anything formal that is equivalent to the notion of a deviation.
However, even if they don't, it's not an infraction to break system...
Unless you can prove that the opponent's have a concealed partnership agreement, I don't think that you deserve recourse...
As I mentioned in my first post, not one has yet produced the single most compelling piece of evidence (written documentation describing the system in question)