There was a massive swing on this board in the North London club multiple teams this weekend. WW, North, opened 2NT (20-22) and South, SB, transferred to hearts intending to bid 4NT as RKCB, but ChCh, West, wandered in with a bid of 4S despite the unfavourable vulnerability. WW bid 5H but East raised to 5S and South tried a pass, surely forcing even at these colours. WW recounted his points and doubled - "4 quick tricks, pard, and they are vulnerable". Unfortunately there was no defence, and SB, South, thought nothing of it until he entered the score in the Bridgemate to find that most NS pairs were in 6H (usually failing) or 6NT (always making) except the Precision pair, who had just played the board, who also conceded 5Sx=.
"Did you hear anything about this board the last time it was played, you sleaze ball?" asked SB of ChCh. "How could I?" replied ChCh, "it was just played at table 13 right across the room, and this is table 1."
"Hmm", responded SB, "you could have known that North would have opened a strong club at table 13, as the NS pair there are playing Precision. You could have seen that East was declarer so might well have made a two-suited overcall. And when South showed long hearts at this table, you could have anticipated that East had short hearts." He paused for breath. "The last is authorised, of course, but the fact that East was declarer when the board was just played was not."
"Rubbish", replied ChCh, "I thought 4S was a reasonable shot, as you were quite likely to have a slam on, and even at these colours it might be cheap." He continued, "I did not see who was declarer the previous time it was played, and it would be very difficult to tell at this distance".
"You could have seen when you went to get coffee from the kitchen", responded SB, "with anyone else I would not be suspicious, but for someone with the ethics of a snake, I think it is case proven," he added.
The TD was called. How should he rule, and how should he deal with SB's allegations?