RMB1

I think "exceptionally" is unnecessary overstatement by a previous editor - I have baulked at the word before. Now someone else has objected, I will see if rewording is possible. :)

This may be relevant: If the opening lead (or final call in the auction) would have been different if the defender had heard both explanations then the Note allows you to adjust as if the defender had heard the correction in time to be allowed to change. In the OP it is in time for the defender to change his opening lead, even though it is faced, as long as dummy has not faced any card.

At the end of the round, the Bridgemates say "Awaiting new movement ..." or some such. When the new movement (assignment) is updated, the Bridgemates show the move for the players (previously) at the table. The new players press "OK" and the Bridgemates show the new round informations: pair numbers, boards, and then names.

In the past, this was what it cost the DIC to get a committee together. These days, retained deposits have an account code at the EBU and the whole thing is on an entirely different footing ...

Apologies to any club appeal procedures I may have maligned, either in EBU or ACBL.

If the Director hears the appeal as a matter of law, that (appeal) decision can still be appealed to a committee - but given what has been said in other topics about ACBL club appeal processes, who knows what will happen.

Overcaller should bid again with an above average overcall, including one which has been improved by a fit for advancer's suit. No. When I play NF/constructive advances I just hope our common understanding is close enough.

+1 Even at a national level in the EBU, there is no absolute prohibition; the only restriction is this. I have been a member of four different county associations, with friends in each. If I could not rule at tables involving those counties it would tough for me to TD at any of the county representative national events.

I read the poll as what I say, not what is common usage.

The use of a hyphen in a verb phrase would be odd. But there is little consistency in the use of hyphens; and a tendency for two-word phrases to migrate from two words, to hyphenated, to one word (with no hyphen or space).

Delete this one before the votes get split?

There is relevant guidance/example in the EBU White Book: 8.12.7 and 8.12.10 If the play was sufficiently advanced then it is permitted to assign a score even if the board was not completed.

My recollection is different. Flint/Sheehan played a system which switched Pass and 1♣ and a US pair had a misunderstanding about (1♣)-2♣. Armstrong was playing two partnerships: with Kirby playing precision; and with Forrester playing TRS.

. The ACBL does not have artificial* adjustments for fielded misbids. [ * We might claim the EBU regulation is a Law 12C1(d) adjustment, not an artificial (Law 12C2) adjustment; except the regulation pre-dates Law 12C1(d). ]

I think gnasher may not think 16C is the correct law to be reading, I think Law 16B and Law 73C are more appropriate.

The timing of partner's question is illegal and he should know so. If partner wants a club lead then this appears to be an illegal attempt to communicate. I would consider a procedural penalty - even if there is also an adjustment for use of unauthorised information. [ I did write "under Law 16B" instead of "for use of unauthorised information" but jillybean's TDs do not do law numbers :) ]

At any level, I don't expect a TD to read from the book but I do expect it to be clear which law he is applying. "1NT was insufficient and various players have options/restrictions" "1NT was unintended and can be corrected without penalty" "No call has been made and the player is free to make a call" To answer the OP, if the original "can correct" ruling was an insufficient bid ruling, then Pass does not have the same or more precise meaning than 1NT and so North (opener) is silenced. The auction and play continues. But there has been director's error in applying the insufficient bid law and it may be necessary to adjust the score: treating both sides as non-offending.

The unauthorised information for opener depends a great deal on what was said at the table. Did the "offender" tell the TD they wanted to correct an insufficient bid? Did the TD tell the offender they could "change" their call? Was the TD "ruling" under Law 25 (unintended call) or Law 27 (insufficient bid)? - either way it was in error (there was no call). If it was under Law 25, then there is no unauthorised information, the unintended call does not convey any information as to offender's intent. If the ruling was under Law 27 then fourth hand should have a chance to accept. If the ruling was under Law 27B2 then opener should be silenced. If the ruling was under Law 27B1 then the insufficient bid is not unauthorised ("Law 16D does not apply"). So, yes, there may be some unauthorised information depending on what the offender did or said; but there may be other extraneous information generated by what the TD said/ruled in allowing the original "change".

As TD, I explain that the player did not change his call because he had not made a call. What East saw is authorised but if the other players did not see the original attempted call then they are not entitled to know what it was. The auction continues. Anything East said about what he saw is unauthorised to West.

PairsScorer does not do everything. It will score independent subfields and if there is only one score in a subfield it scores it as 50/50 because there is nothing else for it do - effectively this is what you get when factoring one result. If there is a one-score subfield then PairsScorer cannot do the finding of facts required to award an artificial score per Law 12C2 - it does know who is (partially) at fault. So the TD needs to tell the scoring program an artificial adjusted score for the board if it turns out that there is no comparisons for the score on the board - often this will be 60/60. The players responsible for the fouling should be fined - some in the EBU would like to see the total fine (between those pairs at fault) at least 20% of a top, so that we are not giving away match points; otherwise a fine of the standard amount is normal.

FYP

It does not get that far but AC have been told that rulings they are trying to give are not permitted by law/regulation and have changed. In one case, one AC member came and found a TD to tell the rest of the committee they could not give a "Reveley" ruling. Of couse it doesn't always work out. One AC consulted with me about giving a weighted score to a claim ruling and instead produced a split ruling: declaring side 7N-1, defending side 7N= !

I am content that the UI suggests bidding over passing. I think Pass may be a logical alternative. It is probably irrelevant but would 4NT instead of 5♣ show 6 ♣ and 5 ♦/♥? I do not think the defence was a serious error. The error was not playing a second ♠ expecting West to have 7 (3♠ might be wild/gambling but that was before the infraction). The double of 5♣ has a suggestion of a "double shot" - is it gambling? If adjusting to 4♠, I would award 100% of 4♠ -1. (If there is a Law 12C1(b) calculation to be done we would need to know the result at the other table.)

I assume 4♣ was natural - not ♣ and ♥. Can you give more details of the play in 5♣ - what was the nature of the "misdefence".

Mushroom en croute, nut loaf, or just put something like nuts or lentils in the stuffing. OR Just ask your guest what they want and see if they can bring it with them.