[Vampyr]

In the auction 1NT-(2♦)-2♦, suppose the IB is accepted. If the original 2♦ bid was artificial, must the offender’s partner assume that the bid means diamonds? What if the original 2♦ bid had been natural? This matter does not seem to be addressed, and is pretty important.

There are serious problems, as others have noted, with the concept of the “meaning” of an insufficient bid. In the past such a bid could have “meaning” only if it were natural, and could be replaced without penalty only when the lowest bid to make it sufficient is also natural. As problems arise with each iteration of relaxing the Laws concerning insufficient bids, I wonder how long it will take for the DC to come full circle and realise that they should never have fixed what wasn’t broken.

In the meantime, I think that most of these occurrences will end up scored by a volunteer director who may of may not know what he is doing.

Why are the lawmakers so obsessed, anyway? Barring problems with vision or mobility, has anyone made more than one insufficient bid in the past, I don’t know, three years?

Bids out of rotation are also fairly rare, the most common being making the first call when you are not the dealer. And this call is most commonly pass.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2018-January-30, 09:26, said:

Why are the lawmakers so obsessed, anyway? Barring problems with vision or mobility, has anyone made more than one insufficient bid in the past, I don’t know, three years?

Bids out of rotation are also retry rare, the most common being making the first call when you are not the other. And this call is most commonly pass.

We have a tiny club, about 6 tables these days. Yet I think our TD has to deal with an insufficient bid or bid out of rotation at least once every session or two. In a good sized tournament I'll bet there are quite a few of these rulings.

There are also quite a few occasions where the offender immediately claims that it was just a mispull and makes it sufficient. I know we should technically call the TD, but we usually don't bother.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2018-January-30, 09:26, said:

In the auction 1NT-(2♦)-2♦, suppose the IB is accepted. If the original 2♦ bid was artificial, must the offender’s partner assume that the bid means diamonds? What if the original 2♦ bid had been natural? This matter does not seem to be addressed, and is pretty important.

This seems rather a good question to me. I assume that in the absence of UI opener can attribute whatever meaning he thinks is appropriate to the IB. But suppose responder said something along the lines of "oops, I didn't see the 2♦ overcall". Now do we need a poll to decide what the LAs for opener are? Without the UI opener might wonder whether partner thought the overcall was 2♣, or perhaps they had an aberration and thought they were opening the bidding, or......

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2018-January-30, 09:46, said:

We have a tiny club, about 6 tables these days. Yet I think our TD has to deal with an insufficient bid or bid out of rotation at least once every session or two. In a good sized tournament I'll bet there are quite a few of these rulings.

Another reason to go back to a simpler and easier-to-apply policy.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2018-January-30, 09:26, said:

Barring problems with vision or mobility, has anyone made more than one insufficient bid in the past, I don’t know, three years?

Yes. But no more than one a week!

[weejonnie]

If the 2 ♦ call COULD have meant diamonds or COULD have meant hearts then a call showing either of these would be OK - I think.