RMB1

Unalerted doubles of artificial bids are penalties / show the suit of the bid [named in the bid]

Neverthess, I don't think we should adjust on the basis that discovering the mis-sort is automatic. I guess the 10s made it look worth a response. Understood. Once North has made the insufficient bid and then later made fewer tricks than anyone else, he is not getting any match points, regardless of directors' errors.

The original ruling should have been that Law 27B1a would not apply (2C is artificial) and 27B1b would not apply (unless 1C-3C is natural) so any bid or pass by North would silence partner. Thereafter North would make his choice of call and there might be lead penalties (and in principle, consideration of Law 23). This was not the ruling at the table, so we have directors' errors - North was not told that any bid/pass would silence partner before choosing his call and South was not silenced when North bid 2C. EW were not damaged by the first error but with South silenced they would defend 2C, going off. NS were damaged by the first error, it appears that North (even with 4-1-3-5) only bid 2C so that partner would not be silenced. If North is correctly informed that South will be silenced (throughout) regardless then North will probably Pass and EW will reach 1NT/2C/2H. There is a chance North will sort his hand correctly and (with 5-1-3-4) he may compete to 2S. A possible ruling under Law 82C and 12C1(e)(i) is EW get 2C(N) going off some likely number of tricks, NS get the result of 2S(N) or some partscore by EW going off (depending on how likely North is to correctly sort his hand and bid 2S). Under Law 12C1(c) EW would get a weighted score for the number of tricks in 2C(N), NS would get a weighted score of some of 1NT(W), 2C(W), 2H(E) and 2S(N)

I think OB 5B10 is relevant East passed acting as though the double was for penalties, West's hand is consistent with the double being for penalties, so East should alert the double as penalties. Even though they have no agreement, they appear to have mutual understanding that the double is penalties. The EBU regulations could be stronger - no alert means agreement is takeout - alert means agreement is other than takeout or no agreement/undiscussed.

It is not illegal but it may lead to incorrect procedure, and the player who mistakes the auction is responsible for his own mistaking. If opener had thought the auction was over, there were two other players who did not make proper passes. In that case we can rule that everyone made passes but not in the correct manner. If dealer was aware of the double but (OP) "he claims that he never made a pass, so the bdding should not be over" then he is guilty of deliberately breaking the laws to try and gain an advantage - and I would throw the book at him.

Why is opener considered to have passed? They thought the auction was over, so they picked up their bidding cards - they did not intend to pass. I know it is practical to consider that the auction finished with three passes following the double but in the absence of law/regulation the auction has not finished. I could make some ruling that playing to the first trick accepts that the auction has finished and award the apparent table result or I could rule that no result is possible and award 40/40. If I was feeling particularly grumpy, I could award both sides the worse of 40% and their apparent table score.

My recollection is that the TD upheld the claim (the subsequent play was void and there was no Law 70D3) and the ruling was upheld by the AC. I can not find the original appeal written up (it was Masstricht 2000?) but there is an EBL TD training document that mentions the ruling/appeal Sanremo 2010 "The WBF Laws Committee", see "Claims - Concessions" page 10/15. This hand/ruling was immortalized by David Burn's "Claimed it on a double squeeze"

Forrester/Gold play 1C-1M as 5 cards and 1C-1D = relay (not 5M / not 5m GF)

Can convention disruption be disguished from misbids (or psyches). Are you proposing a "standard amount" PP for all misbids?

As I understand it, recorder forms are completed by the complaining pair away from the table, away from the offending pair. There is no verification of the facts. The TD may or may not have been called at the time, but the TD is not necessarily involved in the process. The complaining pair record the bad behavior or suspicious auction and the form goes on file. When there is sufficient evidence to convict, then the offending pair may be presented with the evidence (but by then it is too late to question individual reports).

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought that in the ACBL, recorder forms were filled in by the opponents and passed to the appropriate recorder and not shown to the players.

If I remember correctly, the EBU does not want a system of recorder forms that are completed by opponents and not seen by the players whose behaviour is recorded, because the players will not know there are records held about them, and would not be able to challenge the data held.

I don't think there is a high incidence of Law 25A rulings (where the TD is called) despite some individuals with a high frequency of needing to change. There is (I am sure) a higher incidence of Law 25A changes of call for the reason suggested. Players take calls out of the box, find they have too few or too many, stuff them back in the box and make the intended call. Under EBU regulations, the uppermost of the pile of calls is made, and the change of call is allowed under Law 25A - the TD is rarely called for such chnages.

He assumed he was in hand after playing a heart - I think declarer intended to win in hand by ruffing - I think declarer had temporarily decided spades were trumps.

The any legal plays applies to the partner of the defender who claims, not the claimer, he is allowed to state a line of play.

How does one defender know the other has HHxx ?

It may not be possible to formulate a law that defenders can not claim in certain circumstance, but there could be a warning that if defender claims and defender's partner's plays may affect the number of tricks then the claim may be successfully contested by declarer. Then Law 70 would say that if a defender claims and the declaring side objects then the defender's partner's plays will be assumed to any legal play (or any goldfish-normal play, or whatever).

If South wants to avoid East suffering from the POOT, South can accept (and Pass) and the auction will continue without penalty to E/W.

This is meant to be the position in another laws topic - the defender is definitely going to claim two tricks - either he thinks partner has ♥A or he has forgotten about ♥A.

He can object to the claim (Law 68D says so) but (if he does not object to the concession) play ceases.

"most favorable" is not in the revoke laws, it is (only) in Law 12C1e. Law 64C says to assign an adjusted score - Law 12C says how to assign an adjusted score - including Law 12C1c for weighted scores. "We" don't matchpoint 141 agsinst the string of 150s. We calculate the matchpoints for 120 (a small number) and then matchpoints for 150 (an average number), and weight those (a small number)x0.3 + (an average number)x0.7. But if everyone is scoring 150 then our assessment of the weights of 120 and 150 might be wrong.

See my topic in Changing Laws & Regulations.

OP said "EBL laws", the EBL allows weighted scores under Law 12C1c. It is quite a small list of NBOs that does not allow weighted scores, headed by ACBL.

Dummy has two small hearts and is on lead to trick 12 in a NT contract. The defender next to play has ♥K and ♣A, the ♥A has not been played. The defender thinks he (or his side) will win the last two tricks, should he be allowed to claim? When should he be allowed to claim? Clearly, a defender should not claim if normal plays by partner can affect the number of tricks. Should this be strengthened? Should a defender not claim if legal plays by partner (not just normal plays) can affect the number of tricks?

It should be obvious that East is claiming, play ceases, so there is no "choice of action" for West. If any further decision is to be made, it is by the director in deciding any objections to the claim. It appears that many people do not think East should be allowed to claim, or the outcome of the hand should be judged by different standards when he does. I suggest this is a topic for another forum.