nige1, on 2013-September-26, 20:44, said:
Judging from the facts presented above, I don't understand the criticism of East or the director. IMO, With his vast experience and the wisdom of age, East might well have doubled, if privy to a correct explanation. East bid 2♠ assuming RHO has ♥ (5+ cards). 2♠ is more dangerous if East knows RHO has a two-suiter (9+ cards), because unfavourable breaks are more likely. Whether West would pass is less certain but If the director understands and accepts that subtle Senior judgement, his ruling makes sense.
VixTD, on 2013-September-27, 06:25, said:
That was why I posted it - to see if anyone could come up with a rationale for bidding with the wrong explanation, and doubling with the correct one. It may be that East explained this to the director and convinced them, but this was not part of the story told to me.
Must East be able to explain to obtain justice? What if East has language difficulties?
Trinidad, on 2013-September-27, 06:44, said:
You forgot to put the smilies in.
Trinidad may not agree but I think the vacant-spaces argument (above) is worth consideration
This was from the Seniors Swiss Teams. I was not the director who gave the ruling:
1NT was 12-14.
2♥ was modified Astro, showing either 5-4 in hearts and a minor, or 5-5 in hearts and spades, not alerted.
Result: 2♠(E)=, NS -110
EW called the TD at the end of the hand when the misinformation came to light. East argued that if 2♥ had been alerted and explained he would have doubled (takeout), and West would have passed to score +300.