Conventions ....

[Chris3875]

North opens 2♦which is a multi 2 bid showing either a weak 2 in hearts or spades or a strong balanced hand. South replies 2NT asking for a further description of the hand. North bids 3♥ then scratches out the bid and replaces it with 3♦. Director called and East chooses to accept the 3H (original) bid and South responds 4♥. When it comes back to North she "corrects" the bid to 4♠.

 

You folks will know this convention better than me - apparently the 3♦ was showing top of the range in spades. What should the director's ruling be?

[Trinidad]

That depends on what the auction (3♥, 4♥ and even 2NT) means...

 

Rik

[pran]

I use Multi myself, and as said 2NT asks for a description on opener's hand.

 

There are two schools that I know of for the answers: 3♣ and 3♥ show a weak 2 in hearts, 3♦ and 3♠ show a weak 2 in spades.

 

The difference between the two schools is whether 3♣ and 3♦ show a weaker or a stronger hand (and of course 3♥ and 3♠ the opposite).

 

So depending on agreements 3♥ show 6 hearts with either 6-8 or 9-11 HCP while 3♦ shows 6 spades with either 9-11 or 6-8 HCP. (Their HCP ranges can of course be slightly different).

 

 

And BTW.: I see no reason for the Director to take any further action at all in this case! Law 25B2 has been correctly applied, and while Law 26 is applicable on the cancelled 3♦ bid (showing spades) there will be no lead restrictions (in case North/South should eventually becomes defenders) as spades is legally shown by North with the 4♠ bid during the auction.

[Chris3875]

I understand that the 3♦ bid showed a maximum in spades.

[campboy]

I am not so sure. First, might the original call have been unintended? It sounds like it to me.

 

Second, assuming the ruling that 25A didn't apply was correct, has South used UI? We can't tell without the actual hands. South knows from UI that North has a maximum weak two in spades, not a minimum weak two in hearts. The UI clearly suggests bidding over passing, since bidding will get you to 4♠ rather than 3♥, and partner has spades not hearts. So is passing an LA opposite a minimum weak two in hearts?

[helene_t]

Unintended calls are unlikely to happen using bidding pads, aren't they?

 

Let's say that 3♦ shows a max with spades while 3♥ shows a min with hearts. South has to pass if she has an invitational hand since she can't use the information from the 3♦ bid but if she has a clear GF hand then 4♥ is fine.

 

North knows that she has misbid (that knowledge she apparently came by herself so it is AI) s she is allowed to correct to 4♠.

[pran]

Unintended calls are unlikely to happen using bidding pads, aren't they?

 

Let's say that 3♦ shows a max with spades while she shows a min with hearts. South has to pass if she has an invitational hand since she can't use the information from the 3♦ bid but if she has a clear GF hand then 4♥ is fine.

 

North knows that she has misbid (that knowledge she apparently came by herself so it is AI) s she is allowed to correct to 4♠.

South may bid 4♥ if she holds a hand with which she would bid game regardless of which major suit North has, for instance if South has 4+ - 4+ in majors and something like 18+ HCP. South may also bid 4♥ with a weaker hand which has significant distributional values opposite 6 hearts (weaker subrange) in North.

 

If, however, South raised to 4♥ apparently based on the UI that North (probably) has 6 spades then adjusting the contract to 3♥ in North might be in order.

(In my previous post I assumed that South had a legitimate raise to 4♥)

[helene_t]

Is it common in Australia to play 3♥ as showing hearts? It is much better to play it as showing spades so that responder becomes declarer.

[pran]

Is it common in Australia to play 3♥ as showing hearts? It is much better to play it as showing spades so that responder becomes declarer.

That will make Multi very uneconomic, particularly when 3♣ and 3♦ responses to 2NT are used to show the stronger hands.

 

Just imagine the auction:

2♦ - 2NT

3♠ (showing 6 hearts and the lower HCP range). Now it is impossible to land in 3♥.

 

I use 3♣ and 3♦ to show the lower HCP range maintaining the transfer effects in such cases. It is less important to have the Multi opener becoming dummy when he has the stronger (weak) hand.

[helene_t]

Well 3♠ shows a maximum with hearts, of course.

[campboy]

I expect inadvertent bids are less likely using written bidding (though I've never used it), but it is also difficult to imagine how else this particular mistake would be made -- unless the player thought she was playing your suggested response scheme, of course.

[helene_t]

It is not uncommon that multi-players play different rebid schemes with different partners and have troubles remembering which partner plays what. Maybe a max with spades would bid 3♥ with a different partner but 3♦ with this partner.

[Cyberyeti]

I expect inadvertent bids are less likely using written bidding (though I've never used it), but it is also difficult to imagine how else this particular mistake would be made -- unless the player thought she was playing your suggested response scheme, of course.

 

Was english the first language of the player involved ? I could imagine playing in France wanting to bid 3♣ and writing down 3C then rapidly correcting it to 3T. Or was this done with symbols ?

[PhilKing]

Was english the first language of the player involved ? I could imagine playing in France wanting to bid 3♣ and writing down 3C then rapidly correcting it to 3T. Or was this done with symbols ?

 

Their first language is probably Australian. ;)

[Cyberyeti]

Their first language is probably Australian. ;)

 

I believe the suits have the same names in Australian and English :)

[barmar]

It is not uncommon that multi-players play different rebid schemes with different partners and have troubles remembering which partner plays what. Maybe a max with spades would bid 3♥ with a different partner but 3♦ with this partner.

Forgetting your agreements doesn't make it an unintended call. At the time he wrote 3♥, he intended that as his bid because he was under the mistaken impression that this showed spades.

[campboy]

Forgetting your agreements doesn't make it an unintended call. At the time he wrote 3♥, he intended that as his bid because he was under the mistaken impression that this showed spades.

Yes, Helene is arguing that it probably wasn't an unintended call.

 

My first reaction was to think it probably was unintended, though, since I wasn't familiar with the method where 3♥ shows spades. Now that I am, I see how it could easily be a 25B case.

[pran]

Well 3♠ shows a maximum with hearts, of course.

 

Surfe it does.

And how do you bid over your partner's Multi opening when you have a strong hand so you expect a fair chance for at least game except if partner happens to have 6 hearts (even with as much as 11 HCP). In that case you reckon that there will be only 9 tricks.

 

This is a typical situation for the 2NT query knowing that you will never be forced above the three level with a disappointing answer.

[Finch]

I use Multi myself, and as said 2NT asks for a description on opener's hand.

 

There are two schools that I know of for the answers: 3♣ and 3♥ show a weak 2 in hearts, 3♦ and 3♠ show a weak 2 in spades.

 

The difference between the two schools is whether 3♣ and 3♦ show a weaker or a stronger hand (and of course 3♥ and 3♠ the opposite).

 

So depending on agreements 3♥ show 6 hearts with either 6-8 or 9-11 HCP while 3♦ shows 6 spades with either 9-11 or 6-8 HCP. (Their HCP ranges can of course be slightly different).

 

 

And BTW.: I see no reason for the Director to take any further action at all in this case! Law 25B2 has been correctly applied, and while Law 26 is applicable on the cancelled 3♦ bid (showing spades) there will be no lead restrictions (in case North/South should eventually becomes defenders) as spades is legally shown by North with the 4♠ bid during the auction.

 

There are lots of different schemes of response to the multi, some of which depend on the strong options. Certainly a lot more than "two schools"

For example,

3C shows any range with spades (over which 3D asks for range, responses 3H min 3NT max- NT declarership has already been decided; 3H is natural 5+ cards FG)

3D min with hearts, 3H max with hearts (over which 3S is natural FG)

3S+ depend on your strong options

 

there are more

[Bad_Wolf]

In NZ and Australia (BTW the language is pronounced 'Strain' :) ) 3 ♥ would most often show hearts. Now partner also thought that and raised 3H to 4; so what was the reply to 4S? I know I know, "can't be anything else" etc, but is that really the case? Can't someone, absent UI, be rethinking the wisdom of opening a weak 2 and now be trying to catch up with a cue?

[PhilKing]

I believe the suits have the same names in Australian and English :)

 

Strewth! It's all changed since I was there then ...

[helene_t]

Surfe it does.

And how do you bid over your partner's Multi opening when you have a strong hand so you expect a fair chance for at least game except if partner happens to have 6 hearts (even with as much as 11 HCP). In that case you reckon that there will be only 9 tricks.

then I would have responded 2he. 2nt means we are in game opposite any maximum

[blackshoe]

In NZ and Australia (BTW the language is pronounced 'Strain' :) )

I thought it was "strine" or perhaps "stryne" but I'm a 'Murrican, so what do I know? ;)

[Chris3875]

My thought process on the day was that the initial 3H bid showed 6 hearts and lower end of the "weak" scale, whereas the attempted change to 3D was showing 6 spades and the higher end of the "weak" scale. If there had been no UI (the attempted change of bid), I seriously doubt that South would have bid on to 4H as she held only 13 points and I saw it more as giving partner an opportunity to correct her misbid. Apparently North had forgotten their system and was initially transferring to spades with the 3H bid.

[helene_t]

Not all 13 points are equal but yes, if pass is a logical alternative then south has to pass