RMB1

I think the potential canape stuff is meant to apply to opening bids. [1♦-1M and 1♥-1♠ were always potential canape and never alerted] Sometimes, if we decide that something is no longer unexpected and is therefore not alertable, it just gets dropped for the list of examples of things that are natural-but-unexpected-and-therefore-alertable. The only way to demonstrate that such a bid is now unalertable is to compare with a previous edition.

The rules do not require that all players bid the same way - so other players do not have to bid the same way as you. The laws require that a partnership properly explain their agreements in bidding - so that you know they may bid differently. Most games have restrictions on partnership agreements - so that you do not have to deal with very weak or very strange bidding by the opponents. (But agreeing to open at the three level on 14HCP is normally allowed.) As other have said, players do not always have to bid according to their agreements - as long as what they do is as much a surprise to their partner as it is to you. What may have happened here is that after two passes, opener decided it was better to bid at the three level to make it difficult for the next player, even though he had more points than is usual.

In the absence of regulation it would be -0.5 to the team awarded +3 / +0.5 to the team awarded +4. The EBU would round +0.5 to +1 and -0.5 to -1. There are examples in the White Book where AVE+/AVE = +3/0 becomes +1.5/-1.5 rounded to +2/-2.

I think Law 86B applies to non-balancing adjustments in knockout teams (based on the heading in the law :)). +3 / +3 is a non-balancing adjustment so the average of the two scores (0/0) is assigned to each team.

Why do you need guidance from the white book when law 86B tells you what to do with non-balancing adjustments in knockout play

They will be in suits if the hands were made from new packs (and the new packs come sorted).

Why is an auction which starts with a misbid/misexplanation and includes an insufficient bid and a bid out of rotation (or a late correction - it is not clear) and possible misdirection by the TD in simple rulings??

Encrypted bidding is allowed - at least anywhere that does not regulate beyond the first round of the auction.

I am thinking of the situation that the player asks the TD (away from the table) if he should correct partner's misexplanation. The TD tells the player (away from the table) that he may not, yet (Law 20F5). There has been an irregularity (the misexplanation) but the player should not be drawing the table's attention to it and the TD will not deal with it now.

Players can receive advice from the TD away from the table, including whether the player is required/permitted to draw attention to a particular irregularity. If there has been an irregularity [that the player is permitted to draw attention to] then the TD should deal with that at the table. If the player talks to the TD away from the table, and there is no action to be taken at the table, the TD could explain that he had advised the player of their rights and responsibilities (quoting Law 81C2) and ask to recalled at the end of the hand.

There is a wrinkle to the last bullet which I suspect may depend on where you play. In England, you can add "even if you used unauthorised information from partner to figure it out"; but then you have to add "but of course you can not use the unauthorised information in your choice of calls/plays". This is EBU Blue Book 2D7

The ACBL could use its regulatory powers under 2008 laws to regulate wide-ranging natural NT bids - rather than the circumlocution of regulating the responses.

I think the intention is that 10-12 or 18-19 is a 10-point range (the same as 10-19) so no artificial responses are allowed.

Isn't that common practice: defender on lead leads face down, asks "questions parther", partner asks questions and then the lead is faced.

WBF General Conditions of Contest, 4.1: "The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances."

Its not in the laws - I know because the EBU does not have an anti-dumping regulation and we are taught that there is no anti-dumping rule. The WBF and ACBL do have anti-dumping regulations for their own competitions.

To apply the VP scale you have to round fractional IMP to integers. The WBF say to round the match result to nearest IMP, exact 0.5 away from zero. The EBU round the same but on individual boards. Jeff Smiths pairsscorer does XIMP and weighted scores.

Even over a 1NT overcall (as in OP)? In which case, yes "you" (opener) do have a problem. I do not recommend calling the TD and saying "we have an illegal agreement/understanding of 2♥" - so you have to explain and keep bidding as if partner has not forgotten. Then explain to the opponents at the end of the hand that partner forgets but that is not your partnership agreement/understanding.

Not for claims. The claim law talks about awarding tricks not assigning scores - there is no reference to Law 12 - so no "route" to the weighted scores of Law 12C1(c). For the EBU, the White Book is explicit (if not dogmatic):

North should not have said what he said if he was not claiming, and East appears to think it was a claim. If it was a concession by East, then declarer gets two tricks: Law 71 does not apply, there are normal plays by defenders which concede both tricks. If it is a claim by North, then EW are in time to dispute the claim under Law 70. Declarer gets one trick because there is a successful defensive line. I prefer to rule that where a statements by one side induces an apparent concession by the other side, then the statement is a claim.

I thought that "A attitude and K count" required Q from KQx.

I only mentioned Changing Laws & Regulation because the OP was now suggesting a rewording of a law.

I don't think you have a problem - you know partner forgets - so explain 2♥ as natural or a transfer and explain 3♥ as natural. Partner has the problem - they intend 2♥ as natural and when you alert they have unauthorised information - they should treat 2♠ as natural and they may have had logical alternatives to 3♥. In general, if you forget an artificial agreement you should expect a bad score. I would suggest forgetting a convention that partner forget.

+1 (is this the right forum?) There is Laws and Rulings or even Changing Laws & Regulations

If this only a UI case then the irregularity is 4♣, so whether the Double is wild or gambling or very silly is irrelevant because it occurred before the irregularity so Law 12C1(b) can not apply.