UI from opponents enquiring

[pran]

As a long-time user of multi I am mildly surprised of this thread. I may of course be wrong, but my experience is that after 2♦ the responder bids:

- 2♥ requesting a pass or correct (to 2♠ or to 2NT). If opener corrects to 2♠ then responder can make an invitation to game with 3♠ (or possibly even go directly to game).

- 2♠ inviting to game in hearts if this is opener's suit, requesting a pass if opener has a weak spade hand.

- 2NT declaring responder as captain in this auction and initially requesting a specification of opener's hand.

 

Whether 3m shows the weaker hand and 3M shows the stronger hand or vice versa is a matter of agreement and really immaterial.

 

However, when opener receives the UI that responder has mistaken his specification of a stronger hand to indicate a weaker hand and then decided to stop short of game I cannot understand how opener shall be allowed to compensate for this mistake and bid a successful game?

 

I really do not see any problem for the Director?

 

(Bidding at the three-level as a direct response to a 2♦ multi opening bid should never be any alternative!)

[aguahombre]

1) If west thought he had shown a maximum then some pairs would play 3s as a slam invitaion asking partner to show any control he may have below game. If this is the case obviously there is no adjustment.

 

bingo. And a PP for not bidding 4c? :)

[peachy]

Nigel,

 

no need to discuss the merrits and pros of bidding 4 spade now. Without the UI there is a big chance that this is the winning call. But you cannot convince me that it is a must and that passing is no LA.

If you are not convinved, then we must re-examine the facts, again. It is not a question of merits at all.

 

Fact 1. Responder's 2NT was an invite.

Fact 2. Opener has a supermaximum.

 

Given that these are the facts, opener must go to game and Pass is not a logical alternative.

 

If Fact 2 had been "Opener has a maximum" instead of "Opener has a supermaximum" then there might just barely possibly be something to think about. And if opener had a minimum or borderline maximum, only then should there be an adjustment due to use of UI.

[awm]

I know that in my partnerships 2NT is an asking bid. It's not an invite.

 

We occasionally mess around in these sorts of auctions. I don't think this is "psyching" -- the 2NT bidder assumes captaincy, asks what he wants to know, and places the contract. He didn't "show" anything.

 

Thus I think passing 3♠ is a LA.

 

Perhaps in other partnerships where they never mess around with a 2NT response that doesn't have a real fit and real invitational values, there is a coherent argument that passing is not a LA. But I don't think we can assume this unless opponents have pretty clear documentation to that effect (i.e. that they are game-forced when opener has a max).

[peachy]

I know that in my partnerships 2NT is an asking bid. It's not an invite.

 

We occasionally mess around in these sorts of auctions. I don't think this is "psyching" -- the 2NT bidder assumes captaincy, asks what he wants to know, and places the contract. He didn't "show" anything.

 

Thus I think passing 3♠ is a LA.

 

Perhaps in other partnerships where they never mess around with a 2NT response that doesn't have a real fit and real invitational values, there is a coherent argument that passing is not a LA. But I don't think we can assume this unless opponents have pretty clear documentation to that effect (i.e. that they are game-forced when opener has a max).

I play the style that awm describes (sometimes messing with the 2NT inquiry). But playing that style, I think I might feel ethically obliged to bid to a failing 4S instead of Pass with an undeniable supermax, if partner broke tempo, while if playing the style where 2NT is a true invite, the only LA with supermax is 4S.

[hotShot]

2NT is a strongish enquiry

Obviously that needs to be specified more precise.

[jdonn]

I have had the agreement before that showing a maximum is automatically game forcing. But short of that agreement existing how is pass not at the very least an LA? This is easy.

[ggwhiz]

Very easy roll back to 3 spades.

 

Most of the reasoning that says there is no LA to a 4 spade bid says that it is because it's a 1 spade opener!

 

2NT is a strongish enquiry

 

Doesn't matter, 3 spades was NOT forwad going (enough) after I've shown my max....... until pard explained it as showing a min.

[nigel_k]

All the replies saying that this isn't a "normal" weak two, it's stronger than many one-bids etc, are missing the point. The player who held this hand clearly considered it to be within range for his multi, or else he would not have opened it 2D.

 

This seems to be a straight system question: if 2NT took control of the auction, then it's absolutely clear to adjust to 3S+1 (assuming it made 10 tricks). If 2NT forced to game opposite any maximum multi, it's clear not to adjust. If 2NT promised at least invitational values opposite both majors, then it depends what the range of their 2D multi is.

I've already tried to explain this cannot be a straight system question. As a matter of logic, not system, opener can always bid one more. I'm not suggesting that 3♠ is forcing or even especially encouraging, just that it cannot make sense to bid 2NT with the desire to always sign off in 3♠ opposite any hand with spades. In think people are confusing this with a situation where the asker signs off in game, which is quite different.

 

I accept that the player evaluated the hand as worth opening only a weak two and is stuck with that (mis)evaluation for the rest of the auction. But that doesn't prevent him realizing this is an absolute maximum and therefore the sort of hand that has an automatic 4♠ bid over 3♠. Yes it depends what the range of their multi is, but if the upper limit is so enormous that this is not an absolute maximum then that is so abnormal that I won't consider it unless the OP explicitly says that is the case.

[blackshoe]

The question whether to adjust the score hinges on the answer to the question whether pass is an LA - for one of this player's peers. So find several of those peers, and ask them what they would do. If an insufficient number of those peers would pass, then pass is not an LA - how many better players would pass (or not pass) is irrelevant.

[karlson]

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

[nigel_k]

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

Who wouldn't want to bid up to 4♥ with that hand?

 

Responder should either bid 2♠ over 2♦ and raise 3♥ to 4♥, or just bid 3♠ directly over 2♦. Bidding 2NT does nothing to help to you get to the right level in either hearts or spades and lets opponents have extra turns to call.

 

My original example, xx AQx Axxx Kxxx, is the sort of responding hand that makes sense for this sequence.

[hotShot]

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

If responder bids 2♠ and opener has ♠, than opener will pass 2♠.

If opener has ♥'s bidding will continue.

So if responder wanted to play game opposite ♥ with a max and stop otherwise, than 2♠ is the bid that stops in 2♠.

Most Multi player I know won't correct 2♠ simply to 3♥, since ♥ is set as suit whenever bidding is going on, opener uses the bids 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥ to show suit quality and strength. Over this answer responder can bid game or sign off.

 

Whenever responder bids 2NT he does not have the good ♥ bad ♠ hand,

he's got to have an invite to game in ♠.

[NickRW]

Agree with the posters who say that we need to know the pairs methods.

 

1. For me, at this vul, the hand is max - at any other vul it is too strong - but I am quite sure not everyone would agree.

 

2. Again, for me, 2N, without fit for both majors, shows a hand a touch above a min opening. Can shade down slightly with moderate fit for both majors (Hx or xxx in both) and with really good fit for both, though the normal reponse might be 3♥ or above, artistic license is allowed - which rather strongly places responder as captain. However, again, not all pairs allow so much freedom to responder.

 

So, for my money, no decision is possible without knowing exactly what the agreements are. Only if, as director, I hear unclear answers would I make an assumption (or ask the player's peers for their views).

 

But I must admit, if I were one of the peers asked, I would have to say that in such an auction with (or indeed without) such a misexplanation from p, I would feel constrained to pass and hope that the cards sat badly for the game contract.

 

Nick

[pran]

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

If I understand your question correct then with a "strong" weak 2 in hearts opener will respond 4♥ to the sequence: 2♦ - 2♠ - ?

 

(With a "weak" weak 2 in hearts he will respond 3♥)

[pran]

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

Who wouldn't want to bid up to 4♥ with that hand?

 

Responder should either bid 2♠ over 2♦ and raise 3♥ to 4♥, or just bid 3♠ directly over 2♦. Bidding 2NT does nothing to help to you get to the right level in either hearts or spades and lets opponents have extra turns to call.

 

My original example, xx AQx Axxx Kxxx, is the sort of responding hand that makes sense for this sequence.

In multi, the way I have learned it, bidding a suit directly at the three-level over a 2♦ opening bid essentially means: "Forget about your weak suit, I want to play in my suit regardless of what you have".

 

2♠ tells opener: Raise directly to 4♥ if you have a good "weak" 2♥, stop in 3♥ if you have the weal variant, and pass if you have a weak spade suit regardless of your strength.

 

2NT takes control of the auction and opener's only task then is to clarify to responder his hand so that responder can decide the contract.

[helene_t]

I have had the agreement before that showing a maximum is automatically game forcing. But short of that agreement existing how is pass not at the very least an LA? This is easy.

Since 3♣/3♦ show the minimum hands, 3♠ would show a maximum with hearts. So presumably this pair is forced to game once opener shows a maximum with hearts, and then it is likely that they also are if he has spades, I think.

 

Of course from West's perspective he has shown a maximum with his 3♦ bid so one might wonder whether they would also have the agreement that 2NT forces to game opposite a max if they had played 3♦ as showing a maximum <_<

[pran]

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

If responder bids 2♠ and opener has ♠, than opener will pass 2♠.

If opener has ♥'s bidding will continue.

So if responder wanted to play game opposite ♥ with a max and stop otherwise, than 2♠ is the bid that stops in 2♠.

Most Multi player I know won't correct 2♠ simply to 3♥, since ♥ is set as suit whenever bidding is going on, opener uses the bids 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥ to show suit quality and strength. Over this answer responder can bid game or sign off.

 

Whenever responder bids 2NT he does not have the good ♥ bad ♠ hand,

he's got to have an invite to game in ♠.

Not neccessarily. "Got to" is too strong. I would agree "ought to", but remember that the prime function of a 2NT response is to take control of the auction.

 

(The 2NT bidder doesn't really show anything except being ready for the three level.)

[bluejak]

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ AJ109xx ♥ 10xx ♦ x ♣ Axx

 

2D (X) 2NT (P)

3D (P) 3S (P)

4S All pass

 

This hand opens a multi 2D (weak 2 either major or 20-22 balanced). Opponents ask at every opportunity.

 

2NT is a strongish enquiry, 3D showed a maximum, but partner explained it as showing a minimum hand with spades, 3S was a sign-off.

 

4S makes 10 tricks. Do you adjust?

I have not read this thread yet, so this is a comment on seeing the first couple of posts only. You have to know how they play 2NT. The way I play it is that it may be weakish with fits, and 3♠ here is a signoff. If so, ruling it back to 3♠ +1 is completely routine.

 

However, some people play that it unambiguously shows game try values opposite a weak two in either suit. If so, a pass of 3♠ is not an LA, so result stands.

 

Of course, a sensible pair who play the latter should also have agreed a meaning for 3♠ here - perhaps choose 4♠ or 3NT? - and it is worrying if they have not. So I would ask a lot of questions before allowing the result to stand.

 

<_<

 

I'm a little confused. Is the question essentially whether the UI from partner's explanation is the fault of the opponents for asking a lot of unnecessary questions?

Under what Law would this be illegal?

[bluejak]

Passing 3♠ ia not a logical alternative if the field is a decent standard.

 

3♠ is not a signoff - we are always free to bid one more in this kind of auction with a good maximum. We have a huge hand that was too good to open a weak two in the first place (Kaplan/Rubens 12.75). Our suit can play well opposite a small doubleton and if partner has a stiff spade and game interest opposite hearts only he would/should have bid 2♠ not 2NT.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

:ph34r:

 

How can 3♠ be a sign-off? Is 2NT a controlled psyche or something?

 

In normal methods, 2NT forces to game opposite any absolute maximum. It is possible that 3♠ is non-forcing because 3♦ has some range, but at least it must be invitational.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

:ph34r:

 

This seems to be a straight system question: if 2NT took control of the auction, then it's absolutely clear to adjust to 3S+1 (assuming it made 10 tricks). If 2NT forced to game opposite any maximum multi, it's clear not to adjust. If 2NT promised at least invitational values opposite both majors, then it depends what the range of their 2D multi is.

This is basically the point.

 

:ph34r:

 

This seems to be a straight system question: if 2NT took control of the auction, then it's absolutely clear to adjust to 3S+1 (assuming it made 10 tricks). If 2NT forced to game opposite any maximum multi, it's clear not to adjust. If 2NT promised at least invitational values opposite both majors, then it depends what the range of their 2D multi is.

Quite so, but...

 

I'm not sure that the TD is necessarily going to be able to find this out. Remember that in some parts of the UK the Multi is popular amongst ordinary club players, who don't necessarily think in those terms.

You do not think they can express this fact?

 

However, if these are the sort of players involved, my instinct is that their philosophy is more likely to be along the lines of "responder is in charge after 2N" rather than having specific agreements as to what is forcing opposite what.

And this one?

 

:ph34r:

 

As a long-time user of multi I am mildly surprised of this thread. I may of course be wrong, but my experience is that after 2♦ the responder bids:

- 2♥ requesting a pass or correct (to 2♠ or to 2NT). If opener corrects to 2♠ then responder can make an invitation to game with 3♠ (or possibly even go directly to game).

- 2♠ inviting to game in hearts if this is opener's suit, requesting a pass if opener has a weak spade hand.

- 2NT declaring responder as captain in this auction and initially requesting a specification of opener's hand.

 

Whether 3m shows the weaker hand and 3M shows the stronger hand or vice versa is a matter of agreement and really immaterial.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

:ph34r:

 

Fact 1.  Responder's 2NT was an invite.

Fact 2.  Opener has a supermaximum. 

 

Given that these are the facts, opener must go to game and Pass is not a logical alternative.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

:ph34r:

 

Doesn't matter, 3 spades was NOT forwad going (enough) after I've shown my max....... until pard explained it as showing a min.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

:ph34r:

 

As a matter of logic, not system, opener can always bid one more. I'm not suggesting that 3♠ is forcing or even especially encouraging, just that it cannot make sense to bid 2NT with the desire to always sign off in 3♠ opposite any hand with spades.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

:ph34r:

 

Agree with the posters who say that we need to know the pairs methods.

 

1. For me, at this vul, the hand is max - at any other vul it is too strong - but I am quite sure not everyone would agree.

 

2. Again, for me, 2N, without fit for both majors, shows a hand a touch above a min opening.  Can shade down slightly with moderate fit for both majors (Hx or xxx in both) and with really good fit for both, though the normal reponse might be 3♥ or above, artistic license is allowed - which rather strongly places responder as captain.  However, again, not all pairs allow so much freedom to responder.

 

So, for my money, no decision is possible without knowing exactly what the agreements are.

The voice of sanity. :blink:

 

:ph34r:

 

In multi, the way I have learned it, bidding a suit directly at the three-level over a 2♦ opening bid essentially means: "Forget about your weak suit, I want to play in my suit regardless of what you have".

 

2♠ tells opener: Raise directly to 4♥ if you have a good "weak" 2♥, stop in 3♥ if you have the weal variant, and pass if you have a weak spade suit regardless of your strength.

 

2NT takes control of the auction and opener's only task then is to clarify to responder his hand so that responder can decide the contract.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

:ph34r:

 

Putting it simply, you really cannot give a correct ruling in a case like this one without knowing the system, and assuming the pair concerned follow your methods leads to incompetent rulings.

[NickRW]

Agree with the posters who say that we need to know the pairs methods.

 

1. For me, at this vul, the hand is max - at any other vul it is too strong - but I am quite sure not everyone would agree.

 

2. Again, for me, 2N, without fit for both majors, shows a hand a touch above a min opening.  Can shade down slightly with moderate fit for both majors (Hx or xxx in both) and with really good fit for both, though the normal reponse might be 3♥ or above, artistic license is allowed - which rather strongly places responder as captain.  However, again, not all pairs allow so much freedom to responder.

 

So, for my money, no decision is possible without knowing exactly what the agreements are.

The voice of sanity. :blink:

 

Wow, David thinks I am sane :ph34r:

 

There must be hope for me yet

[pran]

As a long-time user of multi I am mildly surprised of this thread. I may of course be wrong, but my experience is that after 2♦ the responder bids:

- 2♥ requesting a pass or correct (to 2♠ or to 2NT). If opener corrects to 2♠ then responder can make an invitation to game with 3♠ (or possibly even go directly to game).

- 2♠ inviting to game in hearts if this is opener's suit, requesting a pass if opener has a weak spade hand.

- 2NT declaring responder as captain in this auction and initially requesting a specification of opener's hand.

 

Whether 3m shows the weaker hand and 3M shows the stronger hand or vice versa is a matter of agreement and really immaterial.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

 

In multi, the way I have learned it, bidding a suit directly at the three-level over a 2♦ opening bid essentially means: "Forget about your weak suit, I want to play in my suit regardless of what you have".

 

2♠ tells opener: Raise directly to 4♥ if you have a good "weak" 2♥, stop in 3♥ if you have the weal variant, and pass if you have a weak spade suit regardless of your strength.

 

2NT takes control of the auction and opener's only task then is to clarify to responder his hand so that responder can decide the contract.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

These do not sound like my agreements, they are my agreements, and I clearly stated so.

 

I also stated that they are the fundamentals of multi according to my experience over several years with this convention which for a long time has been very popular in Norway.

 

Of course the OP case may be based on a different understanding and use of multi and if so we need to know what that is, but until we are told a different story I am not so sure my comments were irrelevant.

 

Are my comments irrelevant?

 

The (to me) most important fact in this case is that the opener has received UI to the effect that his partner has incorrectly understood his call to specify a minimum hand while he actually has indicated a maximum hand.

 

Shall opener be allowed to compensate for this misunderstanding by his partner? That can only make sense to me if opener shows that regardless of later calls from his partner he would always go to game once partner bids 2NT over a multi. And he is a long way from showing that. (Why did he not answer 4♠ to the 2NT bid?)

[mr1303]

Apologies for not replying again sooner, but I've been away from my computer for a couple of days.

 

What actually happened wasn't quite as I described. I was North. My partner actually passed 3S, which made 10 tricks (on rather a poor play by me, since most people were making 11 or 12), as she felt that because of the UI she had to pass, and we received a zero as a result. I felt that partner could have bid 4S as she had a super-max.

 

As regarding our agreements, I actually had them right (and had the info on the card to prove it) - 3D actually showed a min and 3S would show a max (with spades). A 3S responder would actually be a sign-off since it had declined the game try opposite a minimum, so the issue as to whether or not 3S is a sign-off opposite a known maximum (in theory) doesn't come up, but she plays it differently with another partner and as a result was confused.

 

With the other partner, she has no agreement as to whether a 3S bid here would be forcing or not, but she thought it probably wasn't.

[peachy]

Apologies for not replying again sooner, but I've been away from my computer for a couple of days.

 

What actually happened wasn't quite as I described. I was North. My partner actually passed 3S, which made 10 tricks (on rather a poor play by me, since most people were making 11 or 12), as she felt that because of the UI she had to pass, and we received a zero as a result. I felt that partner could have bid 4S as she had a super-max.

 

As regarding our agreements, I actually had them right (and had the info on the card to prove it) - 3D actually showed a min and 3S would show a max (with spades). A 3S responder would actually be a sign-off since it had declined the game try opposite a minimum, so the issue as to whether or not 3S is a sign-off opposite a known maximum (in theory) doesn't come up, but she plays it differently with another partner and as a result was confused.

 

With the other partner, she has no agreement as to whether a 3S bid here would be forcing or not, but she thought it probably wasn't.

 

Given your described agreements, your partner did the right thing by passing! Too bad the opponents were asking at every turn, I would make a note of who they were...

[bluejak]

These do not sound like my agreements, they are my agreements, and I clearly stated so.

Fine, and as such are irrelevant to the ruling in this thread since you were not one of the players involved.

 

I also stated that they are the fundamentals of multi according to my experience over several years with this convention which for a long time has been very popular in Norway.

Fine, and as such are irrelevant to the ruling in this thread since you have no idea whether the players involved play normal Norwegian methods.

 

Of course the OP case may be based on a different understanding and use of multi and if so we need to know what that is, but until we are told a different story I am not so sure my comments were irrelevant.

 

Are my comments irrelevant?

Clearly.