
Perhaps I might add a few things since I was the TD.
First, I think this comment misleading:
Quote
All players at the table are of a good standard.
North and South are excellent players. West is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, East, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three.
Second, I do not think this is accurate:
Quote
The director rules that North is in receipt of UI but the question does not indicate anything about either values or hearts.
The TD ruled that it did not suggest bidding 4
♥ over passing, and may easily have said that it did not indicate values. But I did not say nor believe that it does not suggest hearts: I just thought then and think now that this is irrelevant.
Third, I am surprised by this:
Quote
He confides to EW that the people he consulted were not unanimous about this.
Sure, I might easily have said this, though I do not remember doing so. If there is any reason for doubt in a ruling I see no reason to hide it. However, I would tell both sides, not confide it to one side.
Quote
It's hard to see how the question could do other than indicate an interest in hearts.
Rightly or wrongly, neither I nor the people I consulted with thought that was what the question indicated, and we are surprised Gordon thinks this is the
only reason. We believed that East was merely curious.
When the AC made their decision they asked me to explain to East the dangers of asking. I did: she misunderstood me: when she got a bad board the next day in a position where it was necessary to ask I got blamed.
Quote
oh well then doesn't this law apply here? I guess it's next to impossible to prove that, what would you do as Director if South told you "me? for partner's benefit? I wouldn't lift even 1 finger for that idiot, lol" ?
I think it fairly safe to assume that clients do not ask questions to protect their pro partners.
Quote
It's hard to say not seeing North's hand, but imo E-W are probably the lowest of the low, lawyering to try to get a good score rather than playing bridge. It's just a game, folks.
Games are played to a set of rules, and because of the nature of bridge, with its strange communication between partners, UI is a problem. To ask for a ruling when UI has been passed [or apparently has been passed] between partners is very reasonable.
Quote
Did the TD ask North why he bid 4♥? If so, what was the reply? If not, the AC should ask this question.
Yes, he did, also why he bid 3
♣. He said he bid 3
♣ to get the correct lead against 4
♠ which seemed a likely contract. Once they stopped in 3
♠ he considered 4
♥ obvious since they were limited. He understood that if partner was minimum she would have hearts.
Quote
Finally, you cannot say that someone who fails to bend over backwards to avoid a specific indicated call is innocent.
I can, if the player concerned considers there is no real alternative.
Quote
I might also ask South why he asked about the 2♥ bid, to try to establish whether this particular South is in the "always ask about alerted calls" category or the "only ask when thinking of bidding" category.
I think she just wanted to know.