What should NS have done?

[AL78]

Matchpoints:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa52ha543dj3c9765&w=skhj92dq7642ckt82&n=sq73hkqt86dakcaj4&e=sjt9864h7dt985cq3&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2dp2sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

2♦ is multi, 2♠: I'm willing to play in 3♥ if that is your suit, otherwise pass.

 

Clearly NS hadn't discussed how to bid over the multi, but North has a bit of a tricky decision over 2♠. Bidding 3♥ doesn't look right, and double looks reasonable, they have to do something as it will get passed out otherwise, but South evidently thought the double was penalty. I managed to escape for one down with NS having 4♥ on. Is this a simple case of a bad result because of a lack of discussion, or would you have done something different in the North seat in the absence of an agreement?

[TylerE]

Whatever agreements you have, S's pass is just from Neptune.

[apollo1201]

Clearly a bad result because of lack of discussion. Anyway, even I discussed, X is clearly a TOX.

 

Normal continuation will have S show a slightly positive hand with H and lead to 4H.

 

N could have tried a heavyish 2NT overcall, which after a Stayman would also lead to 4H.

[FelicityR]

NS should have called the TD in my view. As I said previously, I played the Multi for many years and the East hand hardly qualifies for a 2♦ opening in first position even at equal non-vulnerability.

 

That said, what were the East/West agreements about the point range and quality of suit of using a 2♦ opening in this position? Did North/South consult East/West's convention card?

 

If East/West's convention card was up-to-date and allowed the opening bidder to bid 2♦ with such a hand, South is truly at fault here by not making any noise after partner's double. Passing is. as others have said, not an option.

[Cyberyeti]

NS should have called the TD in my view. As I said previously, I played the Multi for many years and the East hand hardly qualifies for a 2♦ opening in first position even at equal non-vulnerability.

 

That said, what were the East/West agreements about the point range and quality of suit of using a 2♦ opening in this position? Did North/South consult East/West's convention card?

 

If East/West's convention card was up-to-date and allowed the opening bidder to bid 2♦ with such a hand, South is truly at fault here by not making any noise after partner's double. Passing is. as others have said, not an option.

 

When I played a multi, that would have been a suitable candidate with a spade less, the point of a multi is to be destructive, some play constructive weak 2s as well as the bad ones in the multi rather than strong 2s.

 

The double should be takeout of spades. Passing it is bad, but not as bad as you might think, swap a small heart from partner with a small diamond from declarer and this is 500 (it should be 300 as is if you keep playing hearts).

 

I think bidding 3N with the N hand is far from barking, and may well net 10 tricks, but double is probably better and should lead to 4♥=.

[AL78]

NS should have called the TD in my view. As I said previously, I played the Multi for many years and the East hand hardly qualifies for a 2♦ opening in first position even at equal non-vulnerability.

 

That said, what were the East/West agreements about the point range and quality of suit of using a 2♦ opening in this position? Did North/South consult East/West's convention card?

 

If East/West's convention card was up-to-date and allowed the opening bidder to bid 2♦ with such a hand, South is truly at fault here by not making any noise after partner's double. Passing is. as others have said, not an option.

 

Our agreement is around 5-9 if weak, but some liberties can be taken when non-vulnerable and certainly in 3rd seat. No NS did not consult our convention card, they (North) asked about the 2D and I gave them our full agreement.

[msjennifer]

Sir,the double made before giving an opportunity to E to bid is a strongish TOD .It was absolutely wrong on the part of S to pass.And most certainly the 2D bid in the FIRST SEAT is an objectionable bid.It smells something.

[blackshoe]

East is allowed to misbid. He may even be allowed to psych, at least in some jurisdictions. Even so, there may be a disclosure issue, or an "illegal method" issue. The director needs to investigate, if NS call him and object to the bid.

 

The OP question is about what NS should have done in the bidding. As others have said, S should not have passed the double.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa52ha543dj3c9765&w=skhj92dq7642ckt82&n=sq73hkqt86dakcaj4&e=sjt9864h7dt985cq3&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2d(Multi)p2s(Willing to play 3!H if your suit is !H)dppp]399|300|

AL78 'Matchpoints: Clearly NS hadn't discussed how to bid over the multi, but North has a bit of a tricky decision over 2♠. Bidding 3♥ doesn't look right, and double looks reasonable, they have to do something as it will get passed out otherwise, but South evidently thought the double was penalty. I managed to escape for one down with NS having 4♥ on. Is this a simple case of a bad result because of a lack of discussion, or would you have done something different in the North seat in the absence of an agreement?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

MsJennifer and FelicityR criticise East's Multi 2♦. I confess that I would hazard the opener. Multi is fun to play. There is a small risk of a big penalty but this board illustrates the problems that undisciplined pre-empts create for opponents. if North's double is undiscussed, then South has a hard decision. When in doubt, however, it's safer to treat it as "T/O" or "Cards". Should this be a Lebensohl context? IMO, Yes. But even then, South seems to have a difficult bid. Luckily, here, provided South bids something, North has enough to invite game. Declarer, in 4♥, can end-play defenders, in the black-suits, for an overtrick. [/hv]

[pescetom]

MsJennifer and FelicityR criticise East's Multi 2♦. I confess that I would hazard the opener.

What do EBU's numerous and precise regulations have to say about the minimum strength of a weak major in Multi?

Could a pair agree a minimum of 0, or say 3, and if so would that change alerting/announcing requirements?

If the agreement was a minimum of 5, would this hand be considered a psyche?

[Cyberyeti]

What do EBU's numerous and precise regulations have to say about the minimum strength of a weak major in Multi?

Could a pair agree a minimum of 0, or say 3, and if so would that change alerting/announcing requirements?

If the agreement was a minimum of 5, would this hand be considered a psyche?

 

We used to play 0-9 minimum length 5, not sure what is currently allowed.

[Tramticket]

Double by North is ok. We would have a Lebensohl response structure and a direct 3H response would be invitational. North raises to four.