axman, on 2011-December-22, 19:16, said:
Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.
I think this is because most people feel that it is not worth trying to find out if opener's hand is so unsuitable as make game a poor proposition, but are happy to punt facing the slenderest of 1
♠ openings. But most people also do not feel 3
♣ is a wise choice. Those who do, such as
phil_20686, on 2011-December-14, 14:22, said:
He just wanted partner to know roughly his HCP strength either because he was worred about defending 5D or whatever reason...
present an argument that was not put forward by East and should therefore be discounted.
Or that essentially East was trying to play 3C as something along the lines of '2-way: a mixed raise OR a second tier splinter', the advocates of which, such as
FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-12, 14:01, said:
We think we can play this without UI problems for a number of reasons:
and
dburn, on 2011-December-20, 18:26, said:
Provided of course that partner is supposed to select his rebid on the basis that I can have a hand that might make slam opposite a suitable maximum.
warn against trying to introduce it without partnership agreement and the methods to procede accurately. The fact that OP does not mention such methods suggests that they don't exist, as does West's lack of wariness about making a slow signoff.
Yet OP speaks of a high level of play, so we must determine whether East has made a surprisingly negative evaluation or chosen what seems like a misguided masterminding strategy. Knowledge of East's habits might help resolve this, but it feels as though if in doubt the director should rule against East, who may be successful in appeal.