[aguahombre]

mjj29, on 2012-June-14, 16:48, said:

I believe negative inferences such as these are what the WBF minute about more relaxed application of this law are designed to allow

You might be right about the WBF intent. We hardly ever IB, so it is not likely to come up. But, my partner and I have discussed transfers and Stayman in this context; and we both believe the TD's would probably not figure out to ask the right questions about our methods, and we would choose to give him/her the information that there are some hands which would bid the higher version but would not bid the lower one. We don't know whether the TD will use that knowledge when making the ruling.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-June-14, 10:43, said:

It seems like he just made an assumption that 2♦ and 3♦ would both be transfers, since that's what nearly everyone plays. Unless his assumption was wrong, skipping this step probably doesn't make a difference.

I don't play a 2♦ response to 2♣ as a transfer: do you?

The TD has not just presumed they play 2♦ over 1NT as a transfer, but he has also presumed the reason for the 2♦ bid is that the player bid it over 1NT. How does anyone know this without asking?

I had a long losing argument with Rich Colker and Bobby Wolff [onlookers said that was the only time that pair ever agreed with each other] about a 1♣ overcall over a 1♠ opening by a pair playing strong club. Wolff and Colker sid that ti was impossible for partner to bid sensibly since he knew the 1♣ bidder had 16+: I said how on earth did they know that was the reason for the 1♣ bid.

So skipping this step makes a major difference because you do not know whether it is a transfer unless you know why the IB was made.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-June-15, 09:27, said:

I had a long losing argument with Rich Colker and Bobby Wolff [onlookers said that was the only time that pair ever agreed with each other] about a 1♣ overcall over a 1♠ opening by a pair playing strong club. Wolff and Colker sid that ti was impossible for partner to bid sensibly since he knew the 1♣ bidder had 16+: I said how on earth did they know that was the reason for the 1♣ bid.

Please assume Bluejak is joking. It will save a lot of space on the thread.

[bluejak]

Why on earth would I be joking?

[aguahombre]

OH, maybe because I thought you were aware 1C is not an overcall of anything and that the pair is playing a 16+ 1C opening bid style. My mistake.

[campboy]

If someone makes an insufficient bid then it is possible that he did so thinking the auction was different, but it is also possible that he did so because he got confused and thought it was legal to respond 2♦ to 2NT, or to bid 1♣ as an overcall of RHO's 1♠.

Playing with bidding boxes, in my experience at least 90% of insufficient bids fall into the second category.

Here there is additional evidence that the original problem is in the second category (the failure to announce, which I already pointed out). It is admittedly pretty difficult to get confused about what level a club overcall of 1♠ needs to be, but it is also pretty difficult to mistake a 1♠ card for a pass card, so I wouldn't like to put money on that one either way.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-18, 08:50, said:

OH, maybe because I thought you were aware 1C is not an overcall of anything and that the pair is playing a 16+ 1C opening bid style. My mistake.

It is quite clear from many years of directing plus many years of playing and making ludicrous mistakes myself that some IBs are made because the player bid at a lower level than either he intended or he thought was necessary to overcall the last bid.

Any TD who assumes that the reason for bidding 1♣ over 1♠ is because he missed the 1♠ and intended to open 1♣ without checking is

• naive, and
  
• not doing his job properly

[dkham]

An IB might come from picking up the wrong bidding card, or from not correctly noticing a previous bid. You can't tell which without asking.

So it's possible the 1♣ overcaller in bluejak's example thought he was overcalling 2♣, or the 2♦ responder in the original problem thought he was opening the bidding.