HBJ : Yes I would call a director…..West’s should-I-shouldn’t I bid dilemma led to a clear hesitation that told East either one of two things about his partner’s hand;
(a) I’ve nothing at all but by pre-empting further I can make life difficult for the opponents
(b) I’ve got useful values which might work better defending their 5 level contract than helping you to make 11 tricks in spades
EITHER WAY the subsequent pass carries unauthorised information and/or inferences which compels an honest partner to pass

Was it clear that West was selecting a BID rather than any CALL?
Fondling the bidding box could be the prelude to passing, doubling, or bidding higher. If you can’t tell it’s hard to say there was a suggestion to partner.
In any case, call the director to sort it out.

Hi Paul, HBJ and Giovanni,

Yes, I agree that the TD should be called to the table, but I possibly disagree with at least one of you as to what to expect from him.

To me, the study by West over South’s bold 5 heart bid, before passing. is classic unauthorized information (UI), strongly suggesting either doubling 5 hearts or raising partner to 5 spades and therefore should forbid his partner (East) from taking any action but pass when next it is his hand to bid.

As was suggested, once a partner preempts it is customary (but not mandatory) that he will not bid again, but rather let his partner decide what to do, if and when the opponents compete to a higher level. While there are exceptions to this basic rule of captaincy the East hand is not close to representing one of those, so that his future of continuing bidding (holding the hand he did) should be categorically denied by the reception of UI from his partner’s graphic actions.

The contract of 5 hearts undoubled by NS should be the contract of record and even the doubt of the defense should be decided against the side who took advantage of the UI, which was NS and the mild set of down 2 or at least not more than down 3 (of course, undoubled) should be the reported result.

To that I would give EW a further penalty of blatantly violating the UI rule and add to their lesser score with a procedural penalty which should be determined by their understanding of what they did, and why they must not repeat that sort of bridge behavior. The more they seem to understand their guilt, the lesser the penalty, but whatever that procedural penalty (PP) happened to be would not involve NS, especially if it is matchpoints where advantaging NS would, in effect, constitute penalizing the rest of the NS field by giving to NS at this table a reward they have not earned.

At least to me, by the above ruling. all masters are served and bridge itself becomes the winner for the future, particularly by educating EW on their ethical responsibilities.

If you are going to accuse someone of (inadvertent) cheating you want to be 110% sure.
To cheat is bad… but it is arguably worse to accuse someone of cheating when they aren’t… and punish them even more when they stand their ground. They will be disillusioned and likely quit bridge.
In my opinion there are doubts here:
-Despite West’s hesitation, East was not obliged to Pass, having “extra values” especially at this vul with strong 8-card suit & void (eg at this vul, he could have bid 4S with AJTxxxx, xx, Kxx, x)
-West was surely entitled to be taken back a little when the bidding was at 5-level when it got back to him.
-If West passes smoothly here, many an East would chastise them for not thinking before deciding what to do. West can’t win!
-West might have a different hand and be considering doubling with some defense (eg QJxx in H, and then “think” if Opener has AH or KH), and poor offence… so by passing instead, East may make a poor decision to make positive inference from the hesitation.
-There are often various reasons to hesitate before passing, so for East to start thinking about what it might be is just second-guessing.