[blml] Law 27 revisitedd

[Reg Busch]

A few months ago, I submitted this question. North opens 1C, then 
realises that South had already opened 1C, pass from West. The NS 1C 
shows an opening hand with possibly only three clubs. North asks the TD 
whether he can make a RC of 3NT without penalty. In the NS methods 1C - 
3NT would show 13-15 HCP with clubs the only 4 card suit. The one reply 
said that yes, North may bid 3NT because it is 'more precise'.
Question 1

Following  on from this:  is it my duty as TD to ensure that the IBer's 
hand is systemically consistent with the RC - in this case that he has a 
3-3-3-4 hand and 13-15 HCP?. Or is he allowed now to systemically 
mis-describe his hand with say a 4-3-3-3 hand in order to keep the 
bidding open?

Question 2:If 3NT is acceptable because it is more specific, take the 
situation where NS playing 5 card majors  may open on as few as two 
clubs ( non-forcing). So the 1C is artificial, but the IBer still may 
have recourse to 27B1(b). Is 3NT still OK as being more specific? If 
not, why not?

Question 3:. After the auction 1C - 1C replaced with 3NT as permitted by 
the TD, South now bids 6NT. EW take the H ace and now East holds Jxxx in 
both black suits.. He has been  told by South that the 3NT shows 13-15 
with clubs as the only 4 card suit. Dummy has AQX in both black suits. 
East has to discard  from a black suit -. no problem -  he discards a 
spade. North who had three clubs and four spades to start with now 
cashes four spades to make his slam.. Do EW have a case for damage?.Law 
27D allows an adjustment if 'without assistance gained through the 
infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different'. 
There was no gain from the actual infraction - the gain was from North's 
intentional mis-description of his hand (sanctioned by the TD), Is East 
expected to know that North is entitled to mis-describe his hand in this 
situation?

Reg Busch