Flights of Fancy
As part of a judgement ruling, a director sometimes has to judge what action a player would take in a hypothetical situation ("if the contract was 4H what would you lead?")
I think it's perfectly reasonable, indeed essential, to ask these questions, but what weight do you give the answer? The question you want an answer to is "if the contract was 4H what would you lead at the time?"
When I ask for justifications for things, I often get a long analysis way beyond what a player would do at the table. And sometimes they're blatantly wrong. An example from the other day:
"What would you lead?"
"AS" (from AQ)
"W doubled so is showing 4S, therefore K is 80% likely to be on the wrong side or in partners hand"
"But E doubled, not W"
"Oh, well, erm..."
How much benefit of the doubt do I give the player? Does it matter if they are on the offending side?