[jallerton]

Back to basics. The TD cannot adjust the score unless he judges that:
(i) there has been an infraction; and
(ii) he judges that the infraction has caused damage.

The objective of score adjustment is to take away any advantage gained by the offending side from its infraction. See Law 12.

So, Ed, I have some questions for you in this particular case.

1. Which call(s) might have been infraction(s)?
2. What would/might have happened, had that infraction not occurred?

[barmar]

 paulg, on 2013-July-04, 14:22, said:

I would expect a beginner to bid five clubs even faster than an expert.

I'm not so sure. A beginner will count 13 HCP, and consider passing. I'd like to hope that most would bid 5♣, but I think some would actually pass.

[CSGibson]

actually, what would potentially dissuade me from allowing 5♣ is the initial 3♣ call - I'd want to know what was going on in the bidder's head that he re-evaluated the hand up two tricks. I can think of several reasons, personally, but I want to see if the bidder expresses any of them.

[blackshoe]

I am not adjusting a score because of some non-infraction, I"m adjusting a score because there was an infraction. The question is what results might have happened had the infraction not happened.

Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, it's because West would have had to double 4♠ before the infraction (the 5♥ bid). But if you want me to agree I'm wrong, you'll have to do better than to tell me I need to talk to someone "knowledgeable of the law".

Again, and again, and again, show me the law.

[jallerton]

Law 12:

Quote

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. (a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.
(b) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.
© In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.
(d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.
(e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of ©:
(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a nonoffending side is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.
(f) The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

West's slow pass was not an infraction. If there was an infraction here it was East's 5♣ bid. What would have been the expectation had East not bid 5♣? Presumably East would pass and North/South would declare 4♠ undoubled.

If we're not sure whether 4♠ would have made 9 or 10 tricks, then in Europe we apply Law 12C1c and adjust to a weighting between 4♠ undoubled just made and 4♠ undoubled minus one.

If this case had occurred in ACBL-land, we'd use Law 12C1e.
Subsection(i) 4♠= is the "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" so N/S are assigned 4♠=, +420 for N/S.

Subsection (ii) 4♠=is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" for the offending side, so E/W are assigned 4♠= by North, -420 for E/W.

[blackshoe]

Okay. I see my problem. I took Law 12C1{c}'s "potential results" in isolation. What it means is "potential results given the auction up to the time of the infraction, and then the infraction having not occurred". I should know this. I did know this. I guess I am losing it.