What response to multi?

[helene_t]

But what he is suggesting is that if you do include a strong option, you can't just float it when you don't see partner's lips move.

OK, but that just means I can't use UI. If partner's change of suit after my preempt is unlimited I can't pass it when .... is there anything special about multi?

[nige1]

(v) Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger option of opener's multi 2♦.

I play multi with one partner in EBU land so I would like an answer

You must be looking at the old level 3, Jack.

But what he is suggesting is that if you do include a strong option, you can't just float it when you don't see partner's lips move.

I also remember that there is some latitude from a case where somebody passed a multi with a hand with 5 spades and 6 diamonds and about 15 points. That partner had a weak 2 in hearts was reckoned to be so much more likely than a balanced 21-22 in this case that it was fine to pass.

The rules have changed but I remember playing with and against multi, a few years ago, in an EBU pairs event. An opponent earned a top by passing out a multi 2♦ with a good hand but a potential misfit. We studied EBU regulations in force at the time and tried hard to comply with them, ourselves, so we called the director. After consultation, the director ruled that we had no case, explaining that "is expected to" is different from "is obliged to". Laws guru, Grattan Endicott, endorsed this interpretaion on BLML. The incident occasioned some hilarity among the Scottish contingent because the introduction to the (then current) EBU regulations stipulated that players "are expected to" comply with them. It's understandable, however, that local bridge regulations handicap strangers and foreigners. ACBL multi regulations are an extreme example.

[1eyedjack]

What is the point of stipulating "is expected to" in the laws, if there is no sanction for failing to meet that expectation?