[blml] L27B1

[Robert Frick]

In the auction 1NT (2D) 2C, it is highly likely that the insufficient bid  
was caused by not seeing the 2D overcall. Missing a bid seems to be the  
most common reason for an insufficient bid. Hence, the meaning of the  
insufficient bid is Stayman (and hence 3D as Stayman probably will be a  
legal replacement).

If it is ambiguous whether 2C is Stayman or natural (because the player  
just forgot the order of the suits), then I think the 3D bid (if that is  
Stayman) is still okay, because it is more precise in meaning.

But.... If the player looks carefully at the 2D bid (using bidding boxes)  
and then bids 2C, then the player got the order of the suits confused.

My point is, when the director comes to the table and tries to assess the  
meaning of the insufficient bid, or even whether or not it is  
conventional, the director does not have as much information as the  
players. The director cannot look at just the auction, because of this  
attentional thing.

I think then the director will have to ask the player (away from the  
table) what he thought his insufficient bid meant, or look at his hand (if  
you are willing to do that).

Bob, who likes the new law and is just trying to think about how to  
implement it