I was being flippant, for which I apologise. I disagree with the ruling on the basis that north may or may not have passed if correctly informed, East may or may not have stood the redouble, Even South may have moved, and then the defence is not certain. I accept ...
As far as I can gather, the aus a team requested a review. They felt that they had been damaged by not being given the correct information. The discovery from looking at the deep finesse analysis that 2♦ could only make 2 tricks seems to have initiated a complaint.
You can assume that if you like bill, but I can provide documentation which shows this was the system, and also, the director has involved neither east nor west in any investigations. We have heard nothing directly, nor been involved in any decisions on this matter apart from initiating a ...
Thanks for your input Greg. It is definite in the system that west gave the correct explanation. East may or may not have remembered it if north had passed.
I play that 2NT shows a stronger hand (maybe not that great after having passed the 1NT) enquiring as to the minor suit and general strength, but with a weaker hand I would bid 3♣ (pass/correct).