RMB1

The WBF regulations only apply to opening bids below 3NT, not 3NT and above, so a gambling 3NT is not restricted. Opening bids at the one-level are restricted by HUM and opening bids between 2♣ and 3♠ are restricted by "Brown Sticker". ("Brown Sticker" regulations would restrict playing an opening 3♠ as a "gambling 3NT").

... You might think that (a) could only apply before the illegal/inadmissible call is passed through the screen (because there are other regulations about what happens to irregularity that are passed through the screen). In which case, you might wonder if (b) and (c) also only apply before the call is passed through the screen - but there is no way to tell.

+1 There is not much point in discussing the merits of opener's spade rebid if we do not know to what level responder had bid hearts.

If the poll shows Pass is a logical alternative, we also have to decide what is suggested by a slow 5♥. If South were thinking about which try to make then I am not sure what is suggested. If South were thinking about bidding 6♥ directly then 6♥ is suggested over Pass. If South were thinking about not bidding at all then Pass is suggested over 6♥.

I think Czech and Slovak are separate languages - the official languages of separate countries.

What are declarer's ways of making 'the rest'?

There is a law (Law 14B1, Law 67B2) but that does not cover how "the Director establishes which trick was defective". With some practice, this is not difficult - especially if they players properly point their played cards correctly - without exposing too many played cards. There is no penalty for a revoke by dummy but Law 64C should be applied to restore equity. The two tricks transferred by the TD was not strictly legal but it may have restored the result to what would have occurred without the card being misplayed.

I think it is ambiguous (is ill-defined) how to quantify "such part" in calculating the score for the non-offenders. The calculation for Law 12C1(b) in England is done in terms of matchpoints or IMPs (rather than raw scores or victory points), these calculations follows examples of rulings capturing the intent of Law 12C1(b) before it entered the law book in 2007. For matchpoints, there are is still a small grey area of ambiguity in the calculation.

Have those of you with experience with this law seen the problems anticipated here? In unauthorised information cases, the whole battle over "Reveley" rulings stems from a desire not to "reduce incentive to follow the Laws". In the simplest case there are two logical alternatives and LA1 is suggested over LA2 by the unauthorised information. A player, who follows the law, takes LA2 and gets a worse score than if he had taken LA1. A player, who infracts, takes LA1 and an adjusted score is awarded. If the adjusted score is weighted to include the outcome of both LA1 and LA2, then the infractor (who chose LA1) will still have gained over the player who followed the law. If weighting rulings which include the outcome of illegal action in the weightings are not permitted then the infractor will not gain; in this simple case, the only possible adjusted score is the outcome from the legal action.

I agree there is a difference. We cannot conclude that the committee think a procedural penalty is appropriate in the original case. But given that the committee would not adjust the score when there had been illegal communication then this is support for not adjusting in the original case.

A similar case was considered by EBU L&E committee (2014-10-01): a player bid 6NT intending 6♠, and partner expressed surprise by a comment, and the TD allowed the bid to be corrected. The committee thought that there should have been procedural penalty for the illegal comment but that otherwise the ruling [allowing the correction and no subsequent adjustment] was correct.

There are no special pre-alert regulations for level 5 (there are regulations for WBF convention cards). EBU events that allow HUMs (premier league and other trials) require advance submission/distribution of system cards for HUM and Brown Sticker - which should constitute sufficiently early pre-alert-ing.

I don't think it can be so simple. There are different sorts of "cheats" or different ways to "could have been aware". In using analogies such as the probst cheat we have to know whether the cheating is in the taking of illegal action or in the manner of being aware. In this case, overcaller could have been aware that partner was going to pre-empt in spades by looking at hand records, overhearing another table, or reading the traveller (hacking the bridgemate). Or he could have been aware that bidding 1♦ (and bidding 2♦ if not accepted) would pre-empt responder because responder would not accept 1♦ and bid 1♥. Or he could have been aware that he wanted a diamond lead and responder would accept 1♦ (and so the 1♦ overcall would not be subject to Law 26). Does "could have been aware" include knowing by illegal means, does it include being aware that next to speak never accepts insufficient bids, or does it mean "could have been aware based solely on his hand and the auction"?

Only 27B1(a) and (b) refer forward to "D following" and equally 27D refers to "an application of B1". So an application of Law 27B2 (which is being applied) is not subject to Law 27D only to Law 23 (which Law 27B2 refers to)

The table that was supposed to deal these boards should get AVE-/AVE-

Did I!? I can believe it but now I would maintain that Law 73C is not redundant. Law 73C was part of the "Proprietries" when they were distinct from the "Laws" and I think that explains the difference in approach to UI from Law 16B. A poll targetted at a ruling under Law 16B may nevertheless indicate a breach of Law 73C and so to a procedural penalty (as well as a possible adjusted score under Law 16B).

I presume that nigel is reading "Vixtd" as "Vixen TD" in assuming that Vixtd is female. We may have our own opinion of which female EBU TD most befits "Vixen". :)

I think the Director's power/duty to rectify errors under Law 82 is subject to Law 81: in particular, Law 81C3 allows rectification of errors within the correction period.

If either side knows that the tricks claimed can not be won, then there has been an infraction of Law 79A2 and the TD should interfere. If either side notices after the end of the round then there is a law (Law 69B) which allows the number of tricks claimed to be corrected.

When you don't see it, it is not easy to realise how much goes on. Keep reminding us!

I think we see the problems. I don't see any solutions.

But even if a (take-out) double was defined to repeat the denomination of a (strong) artificial call for the purposes of Law 31A2, application of Law 31A2(a) would silence offender's partner for one round, so what value would a double be (and it would not be "take-out").

The WBFLC minute up thread is presumably some indication of the law makers intent.

South is declarer, the lead is in dummy and South calls for "the two of clubs". There is no ♣2 in dummy, and dummy does nothing, but East play ♣Q. Declarer calls the TD and says he has called for a card not in dummy, and East has played. The only two in dummy is ♠2. Declarer will call for ♠2 if/when declarer is asked to designate a legal card. East has a spade, so cannot play ♣Q to ♠2 from dummy. Rule please: Is ♠2 to be played from dummy? Is ♣Q a penalty card? Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for declarer? Is possession of ♣Q and/or the fact the East would play ♣Q on a club from dummy, authorised or unauthorised for West?