RMB1

If you are prone to making insufficient bids or BOOTs then you should write 'sound overcalls' on your card. When I suggested this at a local 'new laws' seminar, many did not know what a 'sound' overcall was - as would be obvious if you played here :)

At http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/system-cards there are system files for 'Standard English Acol' and 'Bridge for all Acol'.

Then that 'something else' is a also a possible attributable meaning and a call which shows the 'something else' is a comparable call. How will the non-offending side have been damaged? The offender could have made the replacement call without first making the insufficient 2NT bid and offender's partner would know nothing different about offender's hand.

I think this is the wrong approach. We look at the auction and decide that 2NT could be strong balanced or could be a specific two-suiter. 27B1(a) allows 3NT and 27B1(b) allows a bid which shows a specific two-suiter, as a comparable call (Law 23A2).

There are further conditions of contest for trails, provided by the selection committee. The clause Frances quotes is in the general conditions of contest.

Don't know. Is the purpose of a speeding fine "redress for damage" or deter future reoffending?

Good question. Under previous laws, we were happy to skew a weighted score in favour of the non-offending side. So Law 82C would lead to non-balancing adjusted scores. But the 2017 wording of Law 12B and Law 12C1 (except Law 12C1 (e)) suggest that the adjusted score can accurately reflect the outcome of the board without the irregularity: seeking to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board; which side if non-offending is irrelevant. There is no scope in the those laws to treat one side, or the other other, or both as non-offending, so the old (unchanged) wording of Law 82C appears at odds with the new wording of Law 12.

+1

What VixTD said. There EBU approach to Law 82C and split+weighted scores is in the White Book 8.82 (and some other sections cross-referenced from there).

The misere line that EW are looking for must be to take their first revokes in different suits and hands, before any second-revoke-in-the-same-suit. The second-revoke-in-the-same-suit then become irrelevant as the TD is going to award equity from the point before such revokes. So the first four tricks are cross-ruff revokes in the black suits. Then the defence can play four rounds of trumps and concede the rest. The defence have committed four revokes which are all subject to a two trick penalty and have won (just) enough tricks to be transfered. 13 tricks to declarer.

It seems clear that West has no redress. I think the effect of the new law is that players will keep playing on until the first time it goes wrong. The first time it goes wrong, they will call the TD who will probably deny them redress. After that the player will not seek to play on after a claim.

I think that your usage is highly restrictive. Many posters (mainly North American?) use "stolen-bid double" to refer to any double which means "I would have bid that".

I was clearly talking about silencing South at South's second turn after North had failed to make a comparable call (at North's first turn to call).

The original ruling does not include the effects of North not making a comparable call at his turn to call. South is silenced for one round and there are lead penalties. A poll could tell us if both Pass and 3♣ are logical alternatives. I think Pass is suggested over 3♣ because Pass makes it more likely that North will be able to make a comparable call and allow NS to bid/play the hand normally.

Declarer can be presumed to play normally, which includes careless.

Are we still talking about the original case? The OP says he decided to pass, so there was no error for him to realise. The original Pass was not unintended but ChCh appears to have lied in suggesting it was.

You haven't got the law right :( Today: The bid out of turn can be accepted. If it is not accepted then the partner of the bidder out of turn is silenced. Tomorrow (in some jurisdictions): The bid out of turn can be accepted. If it is not accepted and it is partner's turn to call, then partner is not silenced but has UI from the bid out of turn. At offender's turn, if he makes a comparable call then there is no further penalty, otherwise partner is silenced for one round. (There may not be a comparable call if partner opens.)

Thats OK. In England, they only have to pause another three days, or so - then the 2017 laws apply and "pause for thought" does not apply.

2007 Laws: Law 25A, in particular the footnote that says much the same as following. 2017 Laws: Law 25A, in particular Law 25A3:

"calls" should be "suit bids". Blue Book 4B4(a) - either 2016 or 2017. 4NT is not alertable, different rules apply to doubles.

Is 1N(P)4♦ Texas for hearts? If so, I would feel uncomfortable ruling that 4♦ was a comparable call, when the apparent meaning of 2♦ denied the meaning of 1N(P)4♦

Isn't this what happens in football (soccer) and rugby when the referee "plays advantage". There is an infraction but play continues until it is clear that the non-offending side have not been able to take advantage of the position; at that point the referee rules on the original infraction (awards a penalty rectification).

In England, any (artificial) fourth-suit bid is alertable. (Below 3NT) The label "fourth suit forcing" is useful for partnership agreements; but for alerting and disclosure what is important is that a bid is forcing and artificial and what is asks/shows.

I think the way to give the rover their 60% is to add a line to the traveller where the rover pair play the "missing pair" and score it as 60/40, and exclude the missing pair from the ranking list. Equivalently, replace the movement with a rover-with-appendix-table (where the highest EW are stationary at the last table, the bumped NS play at this table and share boards with the rover table). Then you have enough lines on the traveller to swap the rover and the NS that mistakenly played the board. Again you need to exclude the highest EW table from the ranking list.

Natural bids can be regulated if they are declared to be "special partnership understanding" (Law 40). If is not unreasonable to declare weak opening bids and overcalls as "special" even if they are natural. However, the ACBL takes a different approach. They do not regulate natural bids, but they do regulate artificial calls in the subsequent auction following natural weak opening bids.