[blml] Another L27

[Peter Eidt]

From: 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?   

(Most probably) yes, the IB is artificial - as long as NS
don't play a system like precision (where a 2C opening
shows long clubs) and South persuades the TD not
having seen all 3 previous calls ...

> 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?   

No, I don't think so.
Of course, if the TD believes that L27B(a) may be applicable,
you should say so, but the details of the bid(s) that fulfill
the requirements of L27B1(b) do not have to be exposed
before made by the offender.

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

Only, if it shows majors and clubs (the possible
meanings of the IB).
Remember: meaning (the singular) is "defined"
as knowledge (i.e. a set of information). So
meanings (plural; as in the law) is (possibly) more
than 1 set of information.

> 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?   

see under 3)

Peter