pescetom, on 2019-November-07, 08:09, said:
I share your perplexity about the relevance of intended meaning, but then strictly speaking there is no logical or legal meaning attributable to an insufficient call either. This is one of the many paradoxes of this law. But the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary gives the explicit example of 2NT – Pass – 2♣ (acting as if it was a 1NT opening; asking for majors, not accepted) and says that in this case a sufficient call asking for the majors is comparable - so it seems that the WBF does want us to consider "insufficient" conventional calls as attributable meanings. I don't see that 1NT – Pass – 1♣ (asking for majors, not accepted) is significantly different. The Commentary also says that the TD might need to ask the offender (away from table) what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid - presumably because this determines or helps determine the meaning attributable, and alternative methods are deemed impractical or superfluous.
I can see that the WBFLC might attribute the meaning of "Stayman, asking about major-suit holdings" to a 2
♣ bid, even if it's in response to a 2NT opening bid, because that's what 2
♣ commonly means in response to a 1NT opening bid. Responder has obviously got something muddled, and the level of the opening bid, or how high he needs to bid in clubs to supersede that bid are two of the things he could have muddled in his mind.
A player cannot intentionally bid 1
♣ in response to anything, and will never bid 1
♣ to ask partner about their major-suit holdings, so I struggle to attribute such a meaning to 1
♣. A player who responds 2
♣ to 2NT does not have to be thinking that clubs outrank no trumps, or that two is a higher number than three, which are very difficult mind-sets for an experienced bridge player to get into. They just have to be thinking: "I'll bid Stayman" and reach absentmindedly for the 2
♣ card without connecting it with the information that partner has bid no trumps at the two level, a much easier mistake to make.
I agree with everything else you've said, including that asking offender away from the table what the intended meaning was can reveal an attributable meaning that you wouldn't have thought of yourself.