Teams,KO, 3rd 16 board segment out of 6 , played with screens (North and East on the same side).
Serious tournament , all players very experienced with international experience.
Before start of play E/W pre-alerted that they play transfer responses to 1♣.
Also a similar sequence with a transfer response to 1♣ had occured few boards earlier in the same segment and was alerted.
East says he alerted the 1♥ bid (shows 4+ ♠s).
He did this by pointing to the bid on the tray , which is not strictly correct procedure (Correct procedure is using the Alert card). Both East and North agree that is the way both of them have been alerting their bids throughout the match.
North did not ask about the alert, which seemed normal to East because of the pre-alert, and because of a similar sequence taking place few boards earlier.
East also alerted the 3♣ bid (because it denied 3♠).
North says he did not notice the alert of 1♥, so interpreted South's double (which really showed ♥s) as t/o and bid a natural 3♠. He also did not ask about the alert of 3♣ , probably assuming it denied 3♥s. After East started thinking (and before East bid anything), North asked East "Wait, what was 1♥?". When he heard it shows ♠s he went to talk to the director away from the table. The director did not allow him to change his 3♠ bid, and after talking to East and North ruled that she believes the 1♥ bid was indeed properly alerted, because East said he is sure he did alert, and because he has been alerting this for several years without any incidents, and also considering the pre-alert , and the transfer responses used earlier.
After conclusion of play the director was called again , and ruled that the table result NS -800 stands. Other table were NS +200, so EW team gained 14 IMPs.
Side issue : While director was sorting things out , South told North "tell the director that you were watching East all the time, and you are sure he did not alert". North refused to confirm that.
N/S appealed the ruling. The AC decided to award them 3 IMPs back. I am not sure what was the exact reasoning - I think it was something along the lines of :
If North would get the correct explanation he would bid 3♥ (Since then his partner's double would show ♥s), which could be either doubled or not , resulting with either -150 NS or -500 NS, which combined with the other room result produces 11 IMPs.
The match ended by EW team winning by a large margin, so this board did not decide the result.
I would welcome any comments about :
1. Relevant laws.
2. Director's actions and ruling.
3. South's comment to his partner.
4. AC decision.
P-1♣-P-1♥*
X-3♣*-3♠-X
P-P-4♥-X
ALL PASS
down 4 , NS -800.