mr1303, on Jul 21 2008, 09:03 AM, said:
2) If you ask North why he raised, he will explain the following:
I am aware that we have no formal agreement on the matter. However, I have a very strong spade suit with good intermediates, plus a super-maximum for my bidding. I believe that my initial decision to open a weak 2 was incorrect, so I am trying to catch up.
I did not alert 2S as I did not want my partner to "wake-up" as a result of the explanation (he is a director himself).
I find North argument highly problematic.
He should alert the 2
♠ bid.
The information that South did not understand North 2
♦ bid is UI to North.
South 2
♠ response gives no indication that South did not get the meaning of North bid.
There is no legal way for him to know that South needs a "wake-up".
In this statement North admits that he used the UI, he should refresh his TD license.
(He deserves a procedural penalty for that!)
But the question remains, what would have happened, if the irregularity did not occur.
Would E/W have bid, knowing the right explanations, I don't think so. Up to now there is no indication that East or West have the strength or shape to act.
(If they had claimed that dbl over an artificial 2/3
♠ would have been lead directing, I could ignore the question, if that is a likely agreement. I could adjust and leave it to the AC to be smarter.)
Would they lead/play differently knowing that there is a small chance that South might not have
♠.
Opps hold
♠ Axxx opposite Kxx both holdings are not very attractive to lead, if at least one opponent bid
♠.
So I still don't see that a different outcome is likely if the explanations where correct.
(Especially if the explanations is "No agreement" or "Undiscussed".)