A bit difficult, since I don't know Singapore's alert regulations, and they don't appear to be on line. But let's see what we can infer from the post.
When West asked about the meaning of 2
, he pinpointed an interest in that suit. This is UI to East. Particularly in conjunction with West's subsequent double of 6NT, it seems to me to suggest a spade lead. That being the case, East is prohibited by Laws 73C and 16A from leading a spade if he has a logical alternative. If the question and double do not suggest any particular lead, then East can lead whatever she likes.
Later, the director ruled that a club lead was an LA. If so, why didn't he say so at the time East asked her question? The statement "there is no infraction at this point" is literally true (disregarding the question of the failure to alert 2
), but not helpful. It seems to me the director led East down the garden path here.
Now we get into territory where it would help to know Singapore's alert regulations. Since I don't, there are a couple of possible scenarios.
Scenario 1: Here I make the assumption that FSF is alertable, and that regulations require or at least recommend a question be asked if a bid which might be alertable is not alerted. In this case, West's "I had to ask" is exactly correct, but it does not absolve East of the restriction on leading a spade.
Scenario 2: If FSF is not alertable, or the regulation does not imply or state one "has to ask", then West's argument is incorrect. East is still prohibited from leading a spade.
Either way, East can't lead a spade. Now, is a club lead an LA? I dunno. Personally, I'd lead the
9 before a club, but I'm a notoriously bad leader.
Regardless, the director rules it is, and adjusts on that basis. But... the infraction which is the basis of his ruling (the spade lead) was caused by his handling of East's question. The director is required by Law 81C5 to inform players of their obligations under the laws. Director did not so inform East. This seems to me a clear case of director error. In that case, Law 82C applies. I don't see any way to rectify this and obtain a normal score, so under Law 12 and Law 88, both sides get average plus.
Director's comment about FSF being pretty common may be true, but I don't see its relevance. Either the bid (2
in this case) is alertable by regulation, or it's not.If it's alertable, then there was MI in the failure to alert it. If it's not alertable, there wasn't. However, at this point, the question is moot, given director's error in handling the problem.
Final ruling: Director error (Laws 81C5 and 82C), adjust score to average plus for both sides (Laws 82C, 12 and 88).
Side comment: West might have helped his side a bit by complying with the procedure set forth in Law 20F1 and asking for an explanation of the entire auction, rather than pinpointing a particular bid.