[Chris3875]

E/W play inverted minors - their system is that if there is an intervening bid or double, all bets are off and they revert to "normal".

I have been asked about an incident that occurred last Friday where East opened 1C and South doubled. West bid 2C which was alerted by East and described as 10+ points. The bidding continued and N/S eventually got to 3S making 10 tricks and apparently argued that they would have bid to game if they knew West only had 6 points. East said she did not notice the double and described their system correctly - I contend that her not seeing the double was careless and she did not, in fact, describe their system which is that after an intervening bid or double, 2C is a weak response.

Depending on the hands ( which I did not see as I wasn't at the club ) I would have considered awarding an adjusted score of 4S by N making 10 tricks.

[aguahombre]

Yes, your assessment is correct. There was misinformation given. It is neither the opponents' nor the director's problem why the misinformation was given in this case.

A ruling based on whether the misinformation led to damage is appropriate. We don't have enough information to do that yet, on this thread.

[barmar]

As aguahombre said, it's misinformation even if the player doesn't realize he's giving incorrect information. The reason might be considered as a mitigating factor if you were considering giving a procedural penalty, but it doesn't affect the basic ruling.

[mycroft]

Also, the reason for the misinformation doesn't matter to the accompanying (at least FTF) UI case; we need to look at West's actions to ensure that she didn't do anything to cater to partner overestimating her hand by an Ace.