Wow. You get the easy ones, don't you?
I don't think there's anything in the Laws that talks about playing your opponents' card (and thank you, I now have another hand for my crazy bridge game!)
I think I would just throw up my hands and tell the opponents "everybody did something wrong here, even if it was just not noticing that West took South's card and then played it, I'm just going to assign a score assuming everybody is partly at fault." And no, that doesn't mean Average/Average, unless it's not obvious how it's going to go.
I think the natural play on the auction and lead is run the clubs and endplay East. I'm willing to give South that line unless they really are weak, and depending on how strong South is, give East/West some percentage of -1.
Now, on the topic of "Can the TD use DD or other results information". Everybody who has said something is right (IMHO).
- Anything is AI to the director, and they can use that information should they desire.
- Use of "other results" is discouraged, and should never be the only factor. It should only be used knowing its strengths and flaws.
- Use of DD to assign results has the same problem as analyzing results against DD. It is to be assumed that TDs know this and will not just look at the Par score.
- I also say that you "should not" look at those things unless it's a "final decider" and you already have a good idea where your ruling will land.
This is a pretty safe case for "there's a line that works, it seems obvious to me, how much of it is 'seeing 52 cards' and how much is 'I'm flight A' and how much is 'it really is an obvious line'? Let's see how many others made it." Pretty much everybody in 4
♥ is going to get there after a 3
♠ overcall, and anybody who doesn't lead the diamond honour-of-agreement is looking at something other than their cards. Even the ruffing club finesse before pulling trump is pretty auto (but note, some of the -1s, and basically all of the -mores, are going to be "didn't think at trick 1, and led the
♥J"). But - and this is the key - even here you don't know that. And you might be assigning a score based on misplays that South or West successfully navigated at this table.
But:
- At table 4, they're playing EHAA or Fox-Lambert 2s and South's hand is a 2♥ opener. They probably get to play it, and East doesn't bid spades. Oh, they don't find the endplay and only make 9 tricks. Valid comparison?
- At table 6, Crazyman West overcalls 2NT at the right colours, finds their club fit, and ends up in 4♥. Now maybe North doubled, but maybe West thinks that "let's get him with his AQTx" and leads a club anyway. Valid comparison?
The key is - how do you know?
Change the hand, even slightly, and suddenly the comparisons are as ephemeral as the results from the 299er game.
And most hands will have many more decision points than this - even the tweaked hands I created. Plus "Yeah, but we open this 1NT, so." "We're playing Kontrast, our 1
♥ opener is 8-14, and we mean 8. For us, this is an acceptance." "They're playing transfer responses to 1
♣, the other tables didn't get to double 1
♦ to show the suit." "Yeah, but most people wouldn't have seen the squeeze possibility at trick 1 and just pulled trump first"...
Like all information, it is available to the TD if useful. Like much information, its relevance and strength has to be carefully judged by the TD. Unlike say self-serving statements by the offenders, it is not obvious to the new TD (or the journeyman TD that hasn't been tripped up by it enough) how seductive this information is, and how it can lead you badly astray. So "don't look at 'other results' to assign a score" is a good first lesson. Like all lessons in bridge, as you gain experience, "unless it's right" or "in these cases (only!)" or "as a decider of weight between 50-50 and 75-25" may be determined to be the operative phrase on this hand. But usually not.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)