[blml] Another L27

[David Barton]

I would welcome any comments on the following scenario.
As TD you arrive at the table to see the following auction
W      N      E       S
1N     P      2D     2C

1N is 12-14
2D is to play
2C would have been both majors if E had passed

1) Do you determine that 2C may have been artificial irrespective
   of South's hand or intention?

2) West wishes to know what penalty will be imposed on South
   (ie which call(s) would not result in North being silenced) before
   deciding whether to accept the 2C. Is he so entitled?

3) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3C?

4) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3D? In this case what standard
    of "proof" do you require that (1N) P (2D) 3D would indeed have
   been both majors rather than say any strong 2 suiter?

Thanks for any comments.

*****************************************
  david.j.barton at lineone.net
*****************************************
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20080307/56ba8412/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 8.0.81 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1316 - Release Date: 3/6/2008 6:58 PM