[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2015-February-03, 11:40, said:

Then OP changes the facts from "East stated he would bid" to "East stated he would bid 2♠", and then provides the answer to his own question. We used to call this a shaggy dog story. I call it Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, then yanking it at the last minute.

What East blurted out is evidence. IMO, however, it isn't conclusive or final. When a player judges that opponents have gained by breaking the law, he often becomes flustered and confused. The director should take that into account when assessing damage and give the benefit of the doubt to EW. Whatever he rules for EW, is the director allowed to rule 3N for NS?

[VixTD]

Coelacanth, on 2015-February-03, 11:14, said:

Now, if E bids 2♠ there is no way EW will find NT. E has failed to bid NT twice now and W will never bid NT with two small clubs. A 2♠ call by E will result in a final contract of 2♠ (making some number of tricks less than 9) or 3♦ (making the same 10 tricks they made in 2♦).

You mustn't forget that North and South are still at the table when you are assigning scores. Presumably North passed over West's 2♦ bid because he had no descriptive bid to make, but he was expecting to hear more on that round from South. If East were to bid 2♠ and South pass, North surely is not allowed to pass this out in any system with inverted minor agreements.

If you're dreaming up a sequence that gets EW into 3NT you also need to consider the likelihood that North is going to double, expecting a much stronger hand from South.