RMB1

A player might be barred from bidding because of an irregularity by partner - bid out of turn, insufficient bid, etc. The partner can not deduce from the fact that the player is silenced that the player must have passed. The withdrawn Pass suggests that the player does not have opening values and so his partner is constrained by Law 16B and Law 73C. Not only does that mean the partner may not be able to bid suits he has not got but it may also mean he has to overbid. I think the law here (combination of Law 30A and Law 16D) does not work.

Rulings are appealable, that is rulings may be reviewed by Chief TD and/or appeals committee. What is limited is the power of an appeals committee to substitute another ruling, if they disagree with the original. Some disciplinary penalties (notably suspension) are impractical to overturn, so these penalties can not be removed. Other disciplinary penalties require the acquiesence of the TD to be overturned.

EBU: a forcing 2NT response is alertable. Players would expect 2NT to be non-forcing. The "undiscussed" meaning of 1x - 2N is 10-12 ish.

I think it is what some would bid, and some would "seriously consider" glaring at partner when they bid. :)

The advice to international teams is more like: Never stop thinking - even when you are getting late play penalties.

It is so common for there to be a mis-understanding on these sequences that I do not think the explanation tells East anything that the 2♥ bid does not. I would bid here on the assumption that partner thinks 2♦ is a transfer to ♥. But I don't know what to bid. I suspect ♥ is North's suit, so I don't want to Pass and go off in 100s. 3♦ is likely to work: partner will probably recognise the mis-understanding. It is a shame the opponents have not started to double, then it would be clear that I was trying to scramble to my suit(s).

Do you mean "EBU" (England) or "EBL" (European) ?

Because South said was natural by pointing at the convention card where it shows 15-18 range and "systems on".

For what it is worth, under EBU screen regulations, infringing calls "shall not" be accepted (EBU White Book 5.4.1(b)). I think this should apply to accepting a (Law 25B) change of call.

They may have the agreement that a double would ask for a spade lead

Sorry to be stuffy but I'm not in a position to discuss this hand.

I suspect East/West will now try to withdraw their concession and claim two tricks. Is there a normal line for one down?

Why has South passed? The OP shows West as dealer. If the Pass out of turn is cancelled, the auction reverts to dealer.

The hand that looks most like this was in the Teams Final (IMPs).

.. or at least declarer is unlikely to accept a spade lead from partner. Infraction-directing calls are little-understood part of the game. :)

When I saw "Autumn Congress Final ruling" I assumed this was the last of a number of rulings from VixTD's day at the Autumn Congress. But it was a one-off topic (by a player!)

When did he play ♦Q ?

We have had a number of issues (real and imaginary) with accepting system notes as evidence unconditionally. We don't require registration of system notes so we don't know that there aren't many versions that say different things. (Or "corrected" pages, run off a printer in the hotel bedroom. :)) There have been cases where one place in the notes says one thing but this is contradicted somewhere else. System notes (like system cards) are often the work of one player and the other player has not learnt it all. In that case it is not clear the system notes represent the partnership agreements/understanding.

Law 64B7 does not mention established revokes, but the first line of Law 64B says "following an established revoke", before the numbered sub-parts. So Law 64B7 applies if there has been two revokes and at least one of them was established. I agree that this appears wrong: if there has been a corrected revoke the opponents have carte blanche to revoke.

As a practical alternative, the TD could offer the offending pair not to play the next board (AVE-/AVE+) and they spend the time filling in two convention cards.

I am not saying North has a case, but his contention was that he would bid 4♠ over 3NT not over 4♥.

I don't think the agreement is that unusual in England. Robson & Segal's book (Partnership Bidding at Bridge: the Contested Auction) has 2NT as a good (4+ card) raise by responder after an overcall.

In contrast to Nigel's idealised director's box of tricks, this is the contents of my practical directors box of tricks. Most of it fits in a metal box with "stuff that doesn't go anywhere else tin" on the lid. rubber bands little plastic pots of blu-tack door stop pens for players marker pens for instructions for players PASS / ALERT / STOP! cards name badges (so I know who I am) memory sticks electrical tape and gaffer tape (duct tape) penknife stapler bottle of lens cleaner

... and even less of deviation from "5-9ish (with caveat that with extra shape we may have fewer values)"

Under which law is such a presumption made? Do you think ♣Q is a logical alternative?