RMB1

How do you decide what score to adjust to if opener does not have a systemic legal bid? Apparently 2♠ systemically shows 2+, and 2NT is not legal.

To address the OP: Yes. South is restricted by Law 16B and Law 73C. The problem, as others have said, is for the TD to apply Law 16B: in particular in determining whether Pass is a logical alternative. There might also be an issue of deciding whether Double is suggest over bidding or vice versa.

Does the second bit of UI really suggest passing - the information is that South thinks North is legally obliged to pass, not that South wants North to pass. North can easily avoid both bits of UI by doubling.

You have the right to make a ruling (or finding of fact) based on evidence. I think the standard of proof required here is just balance of probabilities: is it more likely than not that the board was fouled? I think you have decided it was. The next question is how to score it. This may be subject to regulation. You have two sub-fields each with two results. (I believe the ACBL have regulations for scoring small sub-fields.) In the absence of regulation, you should Neuberg each sub-field. A top is 6 (4 results), so in each sub-field the top result scores 5 matchpoints and the bottom result scores 1 matchpoint. But I guess your scoring program may do this for you - and implement local regulations for fouled boards.

For what its worth, the EBU recently decided that 1NT-(2S)-3D was not alertable if it showed diamonds: forcing OR non-forcing.

The director should have addressed the potential damage from the use of unauthorised information - even if he might rule no damage. North has logical alternatives to 3NT and chose 3NT because he knew partner thought 2♦ was artificial. What the logical alternatives are depend on what North thought the system was when he bid 2♦: 2♠ (stopper), 2NT (nat), 3♥ (support) might be possible. Without more knowledge of the different North and South understandings, it is impossible to know what contracts might be reached and whether EW were damaged. South also has unauthorised information from the failure to alert 2♣ and from the slow 3NT. Either might suggest that North has forgotten the system and suggest passing 3NT over the logical alternative of 4♥ (known eight card fit). But 4♥ plays no worse than 3NT, so EW were not damaged by the failure to bid 4♥.

The declarer seems to have achieved an Alcatraz coup (according to the definition on wikipedia). If declarer only lost a trick to ♠Q then perhaps he should count himself lucky - it appears the proposed sanction in 1960s/1970s was long-term imprisonment.

At the event that nige1 played last weekend, I would only take dummy away from the table to gather evidence for a ruling on an earlier hand or (less likely) to give/explain a ruling on an earlier hand.

Is there a follow-up poll about what a slow 4♥ suggests?

Reading the law suggests "played position" in Law 45D is ambiguous. It is taken to refer to the position on the table where a card played from dummy to the current trick is; but "played position" is not defined and could also refer to the position where cards from dummy played to previous tricks are. I think Law 45D is the best we have for this position. Perhaps "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name ..." should say "If dummy places a card in a position indicating it is/was played [but] that declarer did not name ..."

Locally, 7:05 to 10:30. In London, 7:30ish to 11ish.

Clubs I have played in think playing 26/27 boards is the norm.

I have some sympathy with dummy but the laws do not: Law 43A1(c) I think "must not" here means I must issue a procedural penalty (a fine of the standard amount) to dummy.

I think Law 45C4(b) only applies if declarer meant to SAY "club king" or "top club", and instead the word "club" was unintended. I think the introduction to Law 46B applies if declarer meant to PLAY ♣K but nevertheless designated a different card.

I understand playing the same number of boards in each section. For what its worth, if I had two sections I would play 7.5 table hesitation mitchell playing 9 rounds, and 9 table mitchell playing 9 rounds.

I meant understanding of bridge logic common to the two players in the partnership, not common to players generally. Some players think that once your side doubles for penalties all doubles are penalties and that this is bridge logic. Other players play forcing passing and a different meaning for double, once the opponents have been doubled for penalties. This is perfectly playable and shows that the first understanding is not universal bridge logic.

Alert (unless your agreement is takeout) and explain your agreements, meta-agreements, common understanding of bridge logic and lack of agreements.

I suspect 30 boards in play, but pairs play only 24.

In case (iii), I would read Law 46B I would investigate to see if declarer's intention to play ♣k was incontrovertible, and if so I would rule that the king is played. I would probably rule cases (i) and (ii) in the same way as (iii).

If you ask before passing when you always intend to pass, it will mislead the opponents that you might not have passed if the answers had been different.

"and I didn't want the weak and to make a 2♥ negative and declare ♥ contracts" would be a reasonable follow-up

Continuing off topic ... The EBU movements manual also has "Patton Schedule" movements, which also have both halves of a match played in the same round. I don't think these are the same as Flower movements, because Flower movements have the same boards in play at all tables.

In practice, the final parenthetical sentence of Law 93B3 "(The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" is enough.

There was/is an issue that there was nothing in law/regulation that changed the 20-minute time limit for an appeal to be lodged in the case of rulings given after an event, even if the ruling was given to players who had left the venue. The practical approach is that those giving a ruling of first instance should state a time limit for an appeal to be lodged as part of the ruling: "twelve hours" or "noon tomorrow" are possible time limits. [i haven't read most of this topic. If I had, no doubt I would have opinions.]

Scoring normally when the board is fouled at both tables is supported by Law 87 B. The application of Law 86D to fouled boards is not explicit in the White Book but the application of 8.86.1 could lead to +3 to one the non-offending team and a bigger IMP score for a non-offending team with a favourable result.