Israel international festival.
All players are experienced, but not experts.
Declarer took the ♦ lead, drew 2 rounds of trumps with A and Q, played ♠ to A, then ♣ from dummy to 9 and Q. West returned ♦ and East (me) continued then with ♠Q.
Declarer took ♠K, West played small spade. Dummy also played small spade and turned the card. Declarer paused for a second or so and said "Spade".
I've taken this as a lead from dummy and played ♠J.
TD was called.
South: "When I called for a spade, I meant the card from the previous trick.
I think I said it before turning my card."
East: "I saw that dummy already turned his card. I can't be sure about declarer (I was looking at the dummy), but I think his card was turned also - before he said "Spade". Anyway, I was sure the trick was over. Declarer called for a card from dummy (out of turn) and I accepted it by playing the J"
According to TD decision, ♠J became a penalty card. Declarer played another round of trumps, East discarded the ♠J perforce and ♠9 was declarer's 10th trick.
As one can see, declarer had no legitimate way to make his contract at the point of infraction.
(though initially he could make it - the ♠A was a mistake of course).
Do you agree with TD decision?
Does it matter whether South first turned his card and then said "spade", or vice versa?
(There was disagreement about the order of these 2 facts between NS and EW).
Obviously, I (East) was misled by dummy which played his card without waiting for the declarer.
TD said that what dummy does is actually immaterial and I should have waited for the declarer.