🚀 go-pugleaf

Here's a busy director's call at an Xmas party complete with wine and
plenty of distraction:

S Deals, EW Vul:

2S      P       3H      X*
3S      P       P       P
*Explained as penalty prior opening lead, corrected after play's end to
takeout

Qx
KJT98xx
Qxx
x

is presented as dummy, declarer with a singleton heart to lead.
A heart was led to the HJ and lost to the doubleton HQ, while the HA
was onside.

The call requesting an adjustment was based on the idea that a penalty
double would more likely be made on such as:
HAxx or HAx
than on
HQxx or HQx
thus playing the HK on the first round would have more appeal.
Had the explanation been "takeout", playing the HK would have had more
appeal, wouldn't it?

What questions, as director, might you have asked to further your
decision?
As someone presenting the case, to a director pressed for time, what
might you have offered in addition to the above?
As a member of the misexplaining side, what might you be prepared to
present at your turn to present?

If called to make an adjustment presented with little more than
Ax(x)
is more likely to double for penalty than is
Qx(x)
that there was a misexplanation suggesting a penalty double,
agreements were otherwise and
the misexplanation suggested an offside, more than onside, HA, at least
more for the HA than the HQ,
how would you rule?

Would the skill levels of the players matter?