[McBruce]

A player makes a free 3H bid vulnerable in a competitive auction after partner's very long pass.
There is no question that pass is a logical and obvious alternative. Bidding with this hand is shocking for this level of player.
As a direct result of this call, the offenders get to 4H vul and the non-offenders bid 4S.
Defenders get off to the best lead against 4S and get two ruffs to beat it three tricks undoubled.
TD adjusts to 2S down 1, still a poor score for the non-offenders as most do not find the lead that gets the ruffs.
TD also chooses to give the offenders a PP of 1/4 board because the offending player's call was obviously based on the hesitation.
Other than Law 90, does any other Law allow this specifically?

[blackshoe]

McBruce, on 2014-January-05, 15:50, said:

TD adjusts to 2S down 1, still a poor score for the non-offenders as most do not find the lead that gets the ruffs.
TD also chooses to give the offenders a PP of 1/4 board because the offending player's call was obviously based on the hesitation.
Other than Law 90, does any other Law allow this specifically?

By "this" I presume you mean the procedural penalty. As to the answer to the question, not that I can find. However, pursuant to Law 16A1{a}, a player in receipt of UI may not choose from among logical alternatives one etc. Use of the bolded words indicates, according to the introduction to the laws, that a procedural penalty should be the rule, rather than the exception (the introduction uses the phrase "more often than not"). This is true despite the reluctance of many TDs to apply it. I would say that not applying it is in most cases an error, at best, on the TD's part. He is, after all, required to enforce the rules (Law 81B2).

Law 73C may also be germane: "a player must carefully avoid taking advantage" of UI.

Edit: it just occurred to me that the adjustment may be wrong as well. Law 12C1{e} says the TD should award "the most favorable result that was likely" to the NOS. Is 2♠ making 2 (or 3) "likely" - IOW is it "likely" the defense would not find the killing lead? That's a judgement for the TD to make, and I wasn't there, so I'll pass. But also Law 12C1{e} says the OS's adjusted score should be "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" - and it seems to me that 2♠ making 2 (or 3) fits that criterion, so the OS should get that result, whatever the NOS get.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-January-24, 18:45
Reason for edit: additional thoughts

[RMB1]

In the EBU we adjust the score under Law 16B and Law 12C1(c)
and/or we assess a procedural penalty under Law 73C
(EBU White Book 2.8.3.3, and 8.73.3).

[mycroft]

I agree with 2S= if there was information from the illegal auction that made the killing lead more likely.

I agree with Ed when he says that we should be issuing PPs for egregious actions by experienced players more than we do, and also we should be doing it independent of the score adjustment (that is, if 2S-1 was A+ for the OS, the PP gets awarded; if 2S-1 was a clear zero, the PP still gets awarded). I will admit that when I adjust -200 to -990 or -1100, I tend to handwave the actual penalty points, and warn them that "if it works it gets rolled back, if it doesn't work, you get to keep it; this is a zero percentage play, and you know better than that. I *should* in fact hit you with 1/4 board as well."

I will grant credit to players who admit their failing (because I fail, too). I remember one hand where I was *certain* there was no LA to 3♣; at the end of the hand, an opponent asks if that was a bit off given [UI], at which point I realize that yes, it was, and it was really quite blatant. "Yes, absolutely, I don't know what I was thinking. Director!"

[billw55]

1/4 board is not enough penalty for such blatant use of UI. We should not be surprised when rules with so little teeth get broken.

[blackshoe]

1/4 board is the "standard" penalty in the ACBL. Nothing says the TD can't award more.

The standard penalty in England is 10% of a top. It seems like it should be easier for the TD to award that in many cases, where 25% might be considered too harsh. But i don't know if it works out that way.