Law 15A3 - wrong board or hand
The law states that if a player "repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his card, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award an adjusted score when offender's call differs* from his original cancelled call."
*There is a definition of "differs" - "its meaning is much different or if it is psychic" -footnote 3
Why not simply allow a comparable call?
Partner opens 1NT and you bid 2 diamonds as a transfer to hearts (with the wrong cards). Playing the next board you have a perfect weak-two in hearts (which is a subset of hands that would transfer to hearts): when your RHO passes, the board is going to be adjudicated 40-60 (presumably) since opening 2D is probably not going to indicate a heart suit. (Transfer weak 2s anyone?) and 2H is not the same call as 2D.
Comments
I like that general idea (for some future version of the Laws – it isn't consistent with the current version).
It would be a bit of an expansion of comparable calls, though; currently, comparable call calculations only happen in cases where the preceding auction didn't significantly change, whereas in this case you're trying to make calls that are comparable between two entirely different auctions. That doesn't seem too hard to figure out if the offender only made one call in the first auction, but what if there's more than one? Would we compare the first calls, the second calls, etc. (which might be difficult if the auctions were different lengths), or the total information shown across all the offenders' bids?
For example, say that in the first auction, the offender's RHO opens 1!h as dealer and the offender bids 2NT to show the minors. In the second auction, the offender's RHO passes as dealer, and the offender bids 1!d, planning to rebid 2!c. Would you consider that comparable? What UI constraints (if any) exist on the first call by the offender's partner, after the 1!d bid but before the 2!c bid? What if the opponents pre-empt to stop the offender showing both suits?
Let's hope it changes in the 2027 revision. It was the first law I requested to be changed because I think it is the worst change of 2017.