Before passing over the double of 2 , your RHO asks you what the double means. You reply "We don't have an explicit agreement but I think it is penalties."

You then bid 2 over the double anyway, in spite of the fact that you have a perfectly good defensive hand if partner's double was penalties.

2 was making an overtrick, 3 goes one off.
Partner has a 4=5=2=2 distribution and intended it as take-out.

You are a very experienced expert player, not playing in your regular partnership.

Which of the following do you think applies to you:

a) It's true you weren't entirely sure about the double, but your explanation was blatant coffee-housing designed purely to try and stop your RHO competing over 2H
b) Your explanation was entirely accurate, but you decided that you didn't want to risk partner having a different idea about the double and 2H should be a decent matchpoint spot even opposite a penalty double of diamonds
c) The fact that your RHO cared about the meaning of the double indicated that he has diamond support, and that led you to have a rethink about the meaning of the double.

As a TD, would you (now a different 'you') say anything?

Lead: Q
Declarer plays small from dummy in tempo (almost immediatly).
East plays the 8 (EW playing UDCA, so, high is discouraging, probably just from 8xx(x) in this position) after a BIT of cca. 6-8 seconds (East's standard: immediate plays; he erroneously thought was making an unblocking play).
Declarer takes the K and plays K back. West taking and, after some consideration, returning a club for -2.
South calls the Director.

Does the BIT on the 1st trick constitute UI?
Do you allow the small club return?
Would you allow the J return (assumed Crocodile Coup catering 108 in partner's hand)?

Tnx.