RMB1

I was envisaging that (away from the table) responder told me that he seen that the next hand had bid over 4NT, that they do not have any agreements about action over intervention, and decided that he would show diamond support. Then I might rule that the (intended) meaning of 5♦ was "diamonds" and the (agreed) meaning of 6♦ was "diamonds", so Law 27B1(b) would apply and partner is not silenced.

The TD appears to be ruling under Law 27B1(a), which includes: My opinion is different from the TD's, I think the insufficient 5♦ is not incontrovertibly not artificial (that is, 5♦ could be artificial). I would suggest that an (insufficient) 5-level response to 4NT ("ace" asking) could always be showing the number of aces, so is never incontrovertibly not artificial. Reluctantly, I might allow 6♦ as a non-partner-silencing replacement call under Law 27B1(b), if offender told me that once there was intervention he was trying to bid diamonds naturally and was confused about the level.

This makes more sense if "declarer" means "dealer"/"first to call" not "the player who will play the final contract"

It (obviously) doesn't matter what one hand is, so lets imagine that declarer 13 spades, then we need to know the chance of dummy has a spade void. Any way, dummy's hand is a random hand dealt from the remaining 39 cards. 39C13 / 52C13 = 39/52 x 38/51 x ... x 27/40 = 1.28 %

This is the effect of the definition in the law book:

I know that this is clarification/interpretation of "the meaning of the insufficient bid". But is does seem nonsense that the insufficient bidder can play "adjective bridge" and add some UI to modify "the meaning of the insufficient bid". ("Adjective bridge" is a modified game where all calls may be "self-explained" by the addition of one one word, for example: "one strong club", "forcing pass", "blood redouble".)

Sorry, misread the original auction diagram (expecting West to be on the left, so the second column was North). I meant the [stop] is UI to the partner of the insufficient bidder, even if the insufficient bid is not.

The [stop] is not part of the insufficient 2♠ bid, so the meaning of insufficient bid is the meaning of 2♠ not the meaning of "[stop] 2♠". So I would question whether jump replacement bids show a meaning contained within the meaning of the insufficient bid. The [stop] is UI to South.

Is it? Many experts play double as take-out without 4 ♠ (this is in Robson and Segal) or they play double as 4+ ♠, as an extension to transfer responses to 1♣.

I am not sure of the function of the phrase: to me it suggests that to renew a request for a ruling is in some way unsporting/impolite rather than not allowed. It is not clear to me that the OP confirmed his "wish to have a ruling before your opponents have left the table to score up that set of boards" and so his team may not have subsequently withdrawn that request and so the phrase in question is not triggered. It is clear (to me) that if OP had asked for a ruling later they would be "in the same position as a player in a public competition who fails to call the Tournament Director at the appropriate time"; in a public competition, the correction period for a ruling from any stanza extends beyond the end of the match, and a request for a ruling within 20 minutes of the end of the match is "in time".

I would argue otherwise, based on that final paragraph. :(

Not even a French dictionary? And the internet is quite good at looking up words, for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repechage

Law 6E makes it clear that all dealing (or pre-dealing) of the hands is at the instruction of the TD. So North/South at the half table in round 1 are not responsible for the boards not being dealt if there was no instruction to do so. Law 6D2 says that the result on the deals from the previous session can not stand.

and therefore it does not exist!?

I don't think alerting/disclosure is going to help much. If 3♣ is explained as "natural, usually less than opening values but sometimes can be opening values" what are you going to do? Next hand is going to act as if it is a normal pre-empt. Responding won't be able to penalize or bid game because he does not know that opener has opening values, and opening bidder will usually be in the dark if he wants to try to show opening values later. Nevertheless, I think the bid should be recorded (in the dreaded "pysche book" :)). If these actions are sufficiently common, this is evidence that responder should be describing the "sometimes can be opening values" aspect accurately.

Or even (FYP),

It is an irregular verb: "I make tactical bids", "You psyche", "She/He cheats".

You asked whether both 11-table two-winner movements had a revenge round. I answered that one didn't and that was an 8-round movement. Someone said that involved 2-board rounds and therefore impractical sharing. Trinidad said it was 3-board rounds. So yes, we were talking about "8x3 boards"

The Bowman (= Web) movement does not involve a revenge round. EW move up one table each round and play 8 of the 11 NS pairs. It is best with two sets of boards, otherwise 10 shares with 1 and 11 shares with 9,7,5,3,1,8,6,4 Playing only 8 rounds (24 boards) it is possible to omit round 5 rather than round 9. After 4 rounds, EW up 2, boards down 2. This avoids the triple share between tables 1,10,11.

I think the power comes from the power to regulate special partnership understandings: Law 40B2(a), in particular "allow conditionally". I note that the WBF thinks it has the power to regulate psychic controls:

It does (for better or worse). EBU psychic control

This power is in Law 40B2(d) "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls." AFAIK The EBU does not restrict the use of psychic artificial calls. Although it does recognise that tournament organisers running a 'level 3' event may choose to forbid psyching a multi 2D.

By assenting, declarer had "otherwise" designated the seven as the card to be played, so it must be played; according to: Law 45 C 4. (a) "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." The original designation (the seven) was not unintended, because it took subsequent realisation to decide he could win the trick. So the original designation stands, Law 45 C 4. (b) does not apply.

I think the appropriate law is Law 46F

The EBU guidance has changed - or changes on 1 August 2015 - as campboy suggested.