Conceptual or Practical flaw in 2v2?

This may be one of those things that's just life, but since I was on the bad end of the bargain, it got me wondering if it's quite right.

Imagine the situation as a regular chess board. The opponent whose turn immediately follows mine has his bishop on f8, and the other opponent is checking me on e7 with his queen. I have a rook on h8 and a knight on c6. The opponent with the bishop has also got a queen which can reach e7.

Basically I am getting mated. Except I am not - as the rules state, "Checkmate only happens when a player's turn is reached allowing a player's teammate to intervene" and my opponent can check the bishop/queen player. So I simply capture the bishop with my rook, the player following me cannot capture his own partner's queen, and the player checking me cannot capture my king as he is, himself, in check. Or he can but then loses his king to my partner in turn.

Except that move is not permitted. As in regular chess, I am required to uncheck myself, capturing the queen with my knight, even though this leads to immediate mate on the next move.  Now, in regular chess this is because there is no concept of capturing the king, nor of anything happening after that - but this isn't true of four player. Two players would lose their kings, and the remaining two would battle to the death.

So: misconception on my part, theoretical loophole in the game, or bad implementation?

Also 2v2 badly needs either a basic translate module or a language preference option when playing random as it's not a whole lot of use playing with a partner you can't communicate with.

I have posted multiple suggestions of examples of this issue, requesting it to be fixed.

Also, have made this forum post

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/four-player-team-mate-is-broken

For me, mate is, by definition, when the king cannot avoid capture.

(Avoidance of) capture is the critical idea.

If capture can be avoided by moving pieces as they are allowed, then mate is not achieved, and the game must continue.

More fundamental still, the ultimate objective in chess is to capture the king. That is the ultimate judge of whether someone wins or loses (as opposed to draws). So, why not just use the king capture as the simplest and truest implementation? Especially as that is already used for revealed checks in team.