[blml] Another L27

[Alain Gottcheiner]

David Barton a écrit :
> 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?
>  
AG : nope. If he holds long clubs, the most probable scenario is that he 
plays natural defenses after signoffs (who wouldn't ? Well, I wouldn't, 
but that's another story) and that he simply didn't realize 2C was 
insufficient. So his holding will be the test. You don't need to look at 
his hand, however. If he tells you he intended to make a natural bid in 
clubs, let the play continue with him being allowed to correct to 3C, 
and if it happens that he in fact holds majors, quarter him and nail him 
on the bar's joist.

> 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?
>  
AG : sure. To chose the best option for his side (72A4 ?) he must first 
know the options. Would you refuse to give declarer the list of options 
after a LOOT ?

> 3) Do you allow a L27B1(b) RC of 3C?
>  
AG : yes, if 2C was obviously intended as natural and 3C over 2D is in 
their system.
Also in the rare case where both have the same artificial meaning; I 
know at least one pair who play both 1NT p p 2C and 1NT p 2D 3C as 
showing clubs and hearts, 3C over 2D being *more* precise (longer 
clubs), therefore allowed.
You would also have to allow me the 3C bid, because a 2C reopening would 
mean either 6 hearts, or 4+ hearts and some 5+ suit, while 3C shows 
specifically 5+ clubs and 4+ hearts (more precise, as above).

> 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?
>  
AG : you're assuming that 2C was intended as showing majors. Okay. The 
standard of proof would be the pair's system notes. Mine say "over 
1x-2x, 1NT-2x (S/O) and 1C-2x (weak), play as over a weak two-bid in the 
same suit" Then you could see that our 3D overcall of a weak 2D shows 
5+H and 4+S.


Now, the question is : what if they don't have systemic notes that are 
precise enough to cover that case ? To bad for them, then. If they 
didn't write it down, this isn't their agreement.




Best regards

     Alain