UI from opponents enquiring

[pran]

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.

You completely avoid the question of UI that was the main point in my comments?

[bluejak]

I do not avoid questions. When I have something relevant to offer, I post it. When I do not, I do not. I do not undertake to answer every question. However, the main point of this thread is that it is unanswerable without knowing the pair's agreements, and therefore people trying to rule on what their personal agreements are - or what is standard in Norway or on the planet Zarg - is not the way to rule.

[mycroft]

This could be a normal maximum weak 2 (and not a supermax) for the pair - some people still play that way; in fact some people would allow more than this! If so, then for every card expected in opener's hand, one less is required for the 2NT invite.

 

If the pair were playing 8-14 mini-multi (which I realize is insane, and quite possibly illegal, but exaggerating for emphasis), then this is a (nice) minimum, 3D would be the right call - would anyone go on after partner signs off?

 

I really think those who think this is an auto-raise are imposing their opinions of what is a maximum weak 2 on the pair. Now it turns out that (from what I can see from the OP) for this pair, at least one person thinks it was a super-maximum *for their agreements* and maybe should go.

 

But since 4S is automatic with the UI, and only maybe automatic without it (maybe even if that's not their agreement, partner decided to psych 2NT with xxxx xxxx and a 4-count this time?) if the argument is "my hand's strong enough for game on any invite, even one where partner doesn't want to go on a max spade weak 2", I'm going to want evidence that it really is a supermax in their methods. I'm sure their system notes have example hands or discussions, or they have partnership experience they can show.

[bluejak]

If the pair were playing 8-14 mini-multi (which I realize is insane, and quite possibly illegal, ....

The OP did not say the jurisdiction so we cannot say whether it was illegal.