mi or fielded psyche?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj9hkjt873d73c643&w=s52haq94dakq82cqj&e=sakt63h5d95cakt92&s=sq874h62djt64c875]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     2♦*   Dbl   Pass

 2♥    Pass  2♠    Pass

 3NT   Pass  Pass  Pass

 

* multi 6more 22-24

 

 

Hi,

 

A case of gross misinformation given to the opps ?

 

I was asked to look at this board, it wasn't my tournament. Should bids like this be reported to abuse?

 

jb

[hotShot]

The convention called "multi" shows:

 

a weak 2 hand in a major with 6+ cards or

a semi focing opening in a minor or

a balanced strong NT hand, the HCP range varys a lot.

 

seems to me opener tried to explain that, but did not do it properly.

 

It is obvious that west knew what multi is! Otherwise he would have passed easts dbl transforming it to be penalty.

 

If E/W claim damage, it will be interesting how they argue. West knows that EW hold 30+ HCP, and bids his 18HCP very "solid".

 

North should be alerted to better explain his bids, but i don't think abuse is needed in this case.

[epeeist]

....

It is obvious that west knew what multi is! Otherwise he would have passed easts dbl transforming it to be penalty.

....

Um, no.

 

North bid 2!d. East doubled. South passed.

 

Assume I'm west, if I pass, North gets a chance to bid. Given I have AKQ82 in diamonds, I can be reasonably sure North's not going to pass. So I might as well bid. Maybe I think that partner has only a few points but a shapely hand and did double to suggest sacrifice? Or did double of an artificial bid request diamond lead, maybe I think north has 6+ diamonds and great cards outside that suit to justify 22-24 points including distribution? That does NOT mean that I knew what North's bid meant.

 

Indeed, if west truly knew what north's bid meant, it might be an argument to pass, looking forward to scoring a penalty in whatever contract north finally retreated to.

 

Now, I agree that by the time west bids 3NT, west must know full well that north does not have 22-24 points and west must know the description was wrong. But maybe that knowledge is based upon north having passed 2 hearts, and partner having bid 2 spades instead of passing the 2 heart bid, i.e. based on later knowledge.

 

I could write more, my argument is that it is quite possible for west to believe north's description of the bid, at the time when west bid 2 hearts. Which explanation was wholly inadequate. And misleading, whether deliberately or not. If one cannot explain adequately in the bid window, use private chat to opponents.

 

All that said, to me it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to justify an "abuse" report. Sure, a misdescription, but the inclusion of the name "multi" -- even if west didn't understand, which is arguable -- suggests no intent to deceive. So just adjust the board if appropriate (that's if, the argument over whether damage shown etc. since west later knew north's bid not 22-24 is another argument).

[hotShot]

....

It is obvious that west knew what multi is! Otherwise he would have passed easts dbl transforming it to be penalty.

....

Um, no.

Yes he does :lol:

North bid 2!d. East doubled. South passed.

 

Assume I'm west, if I pass, North gets a chance to bid. Given I have AKQ82 in diamonds, I can be reasonably sure North's not going to pass.

Tell me, what can he bid, if he holds a 6 card ♦? North won't have a suit to run to.

Knowing that north is not going to pass means, knowing that ♦ is not the true suit of north.

 

So I might as well bid. Maybe I think that partner has only a few points but a shapely hand and did double to suggest sacrifice? Or did double of an artificial bid request

Well if you have an agreement about that dbl e.g. beeing lead directing, that dbl should have been alerted. So i think it is some kind of takeout/info dbl.

diamond lead, maybe I think north has 6+ diamonds and great cards outside that suit to justify 22-24 points including distribution? That does NOT mean that I knew what North's bid meant.

You hold 18 HCP and partners dbl should show some hcps so it is impossible that north can hold 22-24 hcp. So this is *obviously* not possible.

It would have been a good idea of west to ask for specification to that bid.

Indeed, if west truly knew what north's bid meant, it might be an argument to pass, looking forward to scoring a penalty in whatever contract north finally retreated to.

 

Now, I agree that by the time west bids 3NT, west must know full well that north does not have 22-24 points and west must know the description was wrong. But maybe that knowledge is based upon north having passed 2 hearts, and partner having bid 2 spades instead of passing the 2 heart bid, i.e. based on later knowledge.

 

I could write more, my argument is that it is quite possible for west to believe north's description of the bid, at the time when west bid 2 hearts. Which explanation was wholly inadequate. And misleading, whether deliberately or not. If one cannot explain adequately in the bid window, use private chat to opponents.

 

All that said, to me it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to justify an "abuse" report. Sure, a misdescription, but the inclusion of the name "multi" -- even if west didn't understand, which is arguable -- suggests no intent to deceive. So just adjust the board if appropriate (that's if, the argument over whether damage shown etc. since west later knew north's bid not 22-24 is another argument).

 

Of cause it's possible west does not know multi und is a weak player, but we don't know.

[epeeist]

....

It is obvious that west knew what multi is! Otherwise he would have passed easts dbl transforming it to be penalty.

....

Um, no.

Yes he does :lol:

North bid 2!d. East doubled. South passed.

 

Assume I'm west, if I pass, North gets a chance to bid. Given I have AKQ82 in diamonds, I can be reasonably sure North's not going to pass.

Tell me, what can he bid, if he holds a 6 card ♦? North won't have a suit to run to.

Knowing that north is not going to pass means, knowing that ♦ is not the true suit of north.

 

So I might as well bid. Maybe I think that partner has only a few points but a shapely hand and did double to suggest sacrifice? Or did double of an artificial bid request

Well if you have an agreement about that dbl e.g. beeing lead directing, that dbl should have been alerted. So i think it is some kind of takeout/info dbl.

diamond lead, maybe I think north has 6+ diamonds and great cards outside that suit to justify 22-24 points including distribution? That does NOT mean that I knew what North's bid meant.

You hold 18 HCP and partners dbl should show some hcps so it is impossible that north can hold 22-24 hcp. So this is *obviously* not possible.

It would have been a good idea of west to ask for specification to that bid.

Indeed, if west truly knew what north's bid meant, it might be an argument to pass, looking forward to scoring a penalty in whatever contract north finally retreated to.

 

Now, I agree that by the time west bids 3NT, west must know full well that north does not have 22-24 points and west must know the description was wrong. But maybe that knowledge is based upon north having passed 2 hearts, and partner having bid 2 spades instead of passing the 2 heart bid, i.e. based on later knowledge.

 

I could write more, my argument is that it is quite possible for west to believe north's description of the bid, at the time when west bid 2 hearts. Which explanation was wholly inadequate. And misleading, whether deliberately or not. If one cannot explain adequately in the bid window, use private chat to opponents.

 

All that said, to me it doesn't seem like the kind of thing to justify an "abuse" report. Sure, a misdescription, but the inclusion of the name "multi" -- even if west didn't understand, which is arguable -- suggests no intent to deceive. So just adjust the board if appropriate (that's if, the argument over whether damage shown etc. since west later knew north's bid not 22-24 is another argument).

 

Of cause it's possible west does not know multi und is a weak player, but we don't know.

Not interspersed...

 

I assume that point ranges -- except for NT -- including distributional values. So there's more than 40 points total.

 

For instance, say north had 8 diamonds (all the missing ones) and AKQJ10 of spades, only 3 losers. East could have AK10xx in clubs, and KJxx in hearts, xxxx in spades, void in diamonds. 11 HCP and 5-4-4 distribution in unbid suits. I'd call that worth a takeout double.

 

Would that qualify north's hand as being "worth" at least 22 points? It's certainly a hand that (with an artificial strong 2 club bid) I'd open 2 clubs (22+ points) with. East certainly has a hand worth making a t/o double with in that scenario.

 

So sitting west, there's at least one set of hands that would explain my hand, a strong 2 diamond opening by north, and a takeout double by east, and a possible retreat by north (if I pass 2 diamonds) to 2 spades. Not to mention, in that scenario north would easily make 2 diamonds doubled. Not to mention, in that situation EW could easily have heart game...

 

Ignoring other possibilities, e.g. north or east weaker than advertised because NV, etc. I've known (and have myself) made a very weak t/o double in circumstances when it was best way to find suit for a possible sacrifice.

 

That was just a quick stab at the sort of hands that would explain the first round of bidding and show that you are wrong, it IS possible. Sure, unusual hands but I'm sure someone who cared could construct less unusual hands that would similarly justify the bidding.

 

Again, I agree that by the time west bids 3NT west knows "something" is wrong. But that's irrelevant to whether west knew something was wrong EARLIER.

 

Also, the original question was whether to report to abuse. Needing to show damage is relevant to possible adjustment. Needing to show damage is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether to report to abuse for deliberate misinformation.

[luis]

If EW are going to blame the multi 2♦ for their bidding then they can do that in the AC, the TD must rule result stands no MI. This is an absurd attempt to make the TD improve your horrible bridge.

[hrothgar]

East's bidding is suspect. Unless I'm playing some kind of fancy defense against multi where double shows Spades, I really dislike this bid.

 

West's bidding is even worse. West starts with a non-forcing 2♥ and then rebids 3N...

 

In a not overly surprising development, East-West decide to go whining to the director trying to get protection against their own idiocy...

 

No adjustment, combined with

 

1. A recommendation that East West should learn common preempts like a multi 2♦

 

2. An explantion regarding what constitutes damage.

[jillybean]

the TD must rule result stands no MI.

I do not understand this at all, how can someone open this hand and alert it as multi 6more 22-24 and not be MI?

 

Stating the convention name followed by a partial explanation is at best misleading. For some players "multi" will mean nothing, they will rely on the (partial) explanation.

[hrothgar]

the TD must rule result stands no MI.

I do not understand this at all, how can someone open this hand and alert it as multi 6more 22-24 and not be MI?

 

Stating the convention name followed by a partial explanation is at best misleading. For some players "multi" will mean nothing, they will rely on the (partial) explanation.

Comment 1: I agree completely that the 2♦ opener could have done a much better job explaining the meaning of his bid.

 

Coment 2: When I read the explanation, I translate it as

 

"Either a 6 card major or 22-24 balanced"

 

Admittedly, I have a fair amount of experience with multi 2♦, however, as I noted earlier I think that its reasonable to expect that players competing in a worldwide venue develop basic familiarity with standard methods. Players should not expect that the TD will protect them from their own ignorance.

 

Comment 3: Even if there is MI, the E-W bidding is so bad as to break the chain between subsequent and consequent

[the hog]

Catherine, I would be almost positive this is a language issue. . I think opener tried to explain the bid, suggesting a 6 card suit or some 22-24. The fact of the matter is that E-W bid the hand abyssmally and I suspect are trying to use the director to adjust their result. I guess they made 12 tricks in 3N. Note that you cannot make 12 tricks on a non H lead anyway. I would actually be sour on E-W if I were you.

 

Cheers

Ron

[epeeist]

the TD must rule result stands no MI.

I do not understand this at all, how can someone open this hand and alert it as multi 6more 22-24 and not be MI?

 

Stating the convention name followed by a partial explanation is at best misleading. For some players "multi" will mean nothing, they will rely on the (partial) explanation.

Comment 1: I agree completely that the 2♦ opener could have done a much better job explaining the meaning of his bid.

 

Coment 2: When I read the explanation, I translate it as

 

"Either a 6 card major or 22-24 balanced"

 

Admittedly, I have a fair amount of experience with multi 2♦, however, as I ntoed earlier I think that its reasonable to expect that players competing in a worldwide venue develop basic familiarity with standard methods. Players should not expect that the TD will protect them from their own ignornace.

 

Comment 3: Even if there is MI, the E-W bidding is so bad as to break the chain between subsequent and consequent

First: in case I was unclear or overlong (in case? :) ) in previous posts, to me this misinformation suggests accident or negligence, NOT the sort of deliberate misinformation that should be reported to abuse. Indeed, the inclusion of the convention name "multi" suggests no intent to mislead.

 

If that opinion (for whatever my opinion is worth) is helpful, great. Now, on to the rest...

 

The obligation to explain is to explain. Not to assume that opponents "should" know what multi is. Except for private/club tournaments, most tournaments appear to be open to ALL skill levels, including novices.

 

Indeed, as I recall (from reading of it, not at the time!) there were some famous "multi" disasters in world class play, because opponents (or sometimes even the users...) of multi were unfamiliar with it (reference: David Bird, "Famous Bridge Disasters" -- I don't have it handy or I could give a pinpoint page reference). So the assumption that ordinary players -- which may include novices -- "should" know what "multi" means is entirely unfair.

 

Watching vugraph today there was a situation -- including a TD call -- in which a 2 club bid by Fred Gitelman (showing majors, but possible confusion because he was a passed hand) over a 1 club opening by Lauria seems to have been misunderstood by Brad Moss, who therefore accidentally misexplained it to Lauria. Now, that means that probably both Moss and Lauria (and maybe Versace)misunderstood a basic cuebid. Not a problem, unless one has your heightened standards of "knowing" what all bids mean... :P

 

Returning to the multi, if opps know what multi is, just say "multi". Then, if opponents want/need more information, they can ask.

 

By giving a length and point range, that makes it MORE deceptive (not necessarily deliberately) not less. Because opponents may be misled into not asking for more information, because they think all information has been given.

 

You "read" the explanation the way you do, because you know what multi is! For someone who doesn't, a logical interpretation of the explanation is:

 

6 or more cards in some suit, with 22-24 points total.

 

Or even arguably, 6 or more diamonds with 22-24 points total.

 

If one means "or" in an explanation, one should type "or". Not simply use a comma, which is more frequently taken as "and". Or is there some secret bridge alert lingo that designates a comma as always indicative of "or"?

[hrothgar]

>You "read" the explanation the way you do, because you know what multi is!

>For someone who doesn't, a logical interpretation of the explanation is:

>

>6 or more cards in some suit, with 22-24 points total.

>

>Or even arguably, 6 or more diamonds with 22-24 points total.

 

I am having remarkable difficulty constructing hands where

 

1. LHO has 22-24 HCP

2. Partner has doubled

3. I'm sitting on a nice juicy 18 count...

 

>If one means "or" in an explanation, one should type "or".

>Not simply use a comma, which is more frequently taken as "and".

>Or is there some secret bridge alert lingo that designates a comma as

>always indicative of "or"?

 

***** happens. Players making alerts and announcments are frequently under a lot of time pressure trying to provide the opponentns with expanations while getting bombarded with demands for more information. I've seen (and made) some egregious typos in my day and I'm willing to give folks a bit of slack...

 

As I noted earlier, N/S could have done a much better job with their explanation, however, I have a lot mroe sympathy for them than I do for an E/W pair who are deliberately abusing the appeals system.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies, I see the reasoning and know all about multi2♦ now :blink:

 

This excerpt from WBF alerting policy talks about players having a responsibility to protect themselves, what does this mean in practice? Querying bids, calling TD and I can see that there could be a reasonable expectation of players to familiarize themselves with ‘local’ bidding systems but is this practical in an online multi system/level environment?

 

WBF Alerting Policy

 

PREAMBLE

 

The objective is to have a uniform WBF policy which is applied to all WBF events.

It is not intended that this should over-ride Alerting Policies developed by the Zone or NBOs.

Full disclosure is vital. However, players who participate in WBF events are expected to protect themselves to a large extent. They are also expected to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the letter.

 

Perhaps the onus should be on the experts to take extra measures that clearly and fully disclose bids when playing against inexperienced ops.

[Echognome]

I have to say that I agree entirely with the Hog here. This sounds like it was just a language issue and nothing more. Suppose I'm playing f2f and I ask a question and receive a reply of <mumble, mumble>. Am I going to call the TD and say I received MI? No. That would be silly.

 

So if I get an explanation written as 6more 22-24 and I don't follow up and ask for them to explain it more clearly, I don't think I should then complain that I received MI. I know EW are non-offenders, but I still don't see this as an MI case.

[luke warm]

if i was east and had any questions about the bid/alert, i'd just ask.. i think that's what's meant by "protect yourself"... personally i think the alert was fine, weak 2 in a major or big balanced hand is the way i read it

[jillybean]

I have to say that I agree entirely with the Hog here.  This sounds like it was just a language issue and nothing more.  Suppose I'm playing f2f and I ask a question and receive a reply of <mumble, mumble>.  Am I going to call the TD and say I received MI?  No.  That would be silly.

 

So if I get an explanation written as 6more 22-24 and I don't follow up and ask for them to explain it more clearly, I don't think I should then complain that I received MI.  I know EW are non-offenders, but I still don't see this as an MI case.

This is not comparable, mumble-mumble is unrecognizable, 6more 22-24 I understand as 6+ 22-24, so why would I query it? I do accept that later in this auction the ops should have known that this was incorrect and could have queried it further.

 

Surely it is the responsibility of the person making the bid to provide full disclosure and convey the information in a way that the ops can understand?

 

 

I don’t understand this at all.

[jillybean]

if i was east and had any questions about the bid/alert, i'd just ask.. i think that's what's meant by "protect yourself"... personally i think the alert was fine, weak 2 in a major or big balanced hand is the way i read it

How do you get 'weak 2' out of that'?

 

you must have xray vision :)

[EricK]

I doubt anybody was deliberately trying to decieve anybody else.

 

It looks like a mis-spelling of the word "or" combined with an accidental omisssion of the space after "6m".

 

Since the explanation as it stands is meaningless ("6more" doesn't mean anything in English or in bridge) E/W should really ask for clarification.

 

Eric

[epeeist]

I doubt anybody was deliberately trying to decieve anybody else.

 

It looks like a mis-spelling of the word "or" combined with an accidental omisssion of the space after "6m".

 

Since the explanation as it stands is meaningless ("6more" doesn't mean anything in English or in bridge) E/W should really ask for clarification.

 

Eric

I can only judge by what I would think.

 

To me, "6more, 22-24" is unequivocal and clear. It means 6+ cards in the suit and 22-24 points, just as jillybean suggested. Just like if someone opened 2 hearts and explained it as "6more, 5-11" I would assume it meant 6+ hearts and 5-11 points. Since I know multi has multiple meanings (hence, I assume, the name) I would not have been fooled. But someone who didn't, might. Just like I know a Polish 1 club has multiple possible meanings, so I won't be fooled by a partial description; someone who doesn't know that, might be fooled.

 

Which does NOT necessarily mean I'd give EW any adjustment, because there's the whole question of whether they were damaged which is much more doubtful. Though I note, for those blaming EW for a frivolous call, it was my understanding that one was ethically obliged to call the director when there was a violation at the table? NOT wait and see if there's damage, nor decide "Oh well, our bidding was bad, so let's not call the director..."

 

As for the mistyping argument, when one types an explanation, one sees that explanation. If one mistypes it, correct it. Or send a private message to the opponents. Whatever. We're not talking about chiselling letters in stone here, it's the easiest thing in the world to correct a mistyped description!

[jillybean]

Let me clarify - I was not the TD. I was asked by a kibitzer to look at the bidding.

I dont know if EW called the director, if they did the TD let the result stand.

 

If I had been TD I would have said there was MI, unintenional but still MI.

NS should be warned.

 

Damage is also clear but if the law says you must protect yourself to a large extent then I would have to let the result stand. (in hindsight :) )

 

edit: I dont think this is an easy call!

[pbleighton]

"Since the explanation as it stands is meaningless ("6more" doesn't mean anything in English or in bridge) E/W should really ask for clarification."

 

I agree, and, like Ron, I think that this is probabaly a language issue, though it could be a typo.

 

NS should have had a better explanation, but I fault EW 99% on this one. People who call the director asking for an adjustment in marginal cases like this are a disgrace to the game. Unfortunately, they are not so uncommon.

 

Peter

[epeeist]

To my reading -- though I am hardly an expert -- reading Laws 9B and 75D of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make clear that the director MUST be called when a bid has been wrongly explained (which is an irregularity). Must be called. No discretion.

 

So blaming EW for calling the director -- if that happened; as jillybean notes, she does not know if they did -- would have been extraordinarily unfair. "Sorry EW, I'm penalizing you for calling me, as you were obliged to do..."

 

The duty to call a director arises when there is an irregularity; NOT when there is an irregularity plus damage.

 

I have sometimes, in online bridge, called the TD -- and specifically noted I was not asking for an adjustment -- because of a serious irregularity by the opponents. For instance, in one tournament the dummy told the declarer not to ruff a card because that suit had been established -- I thought declarer probably knew, so no damage, which was why I asked for no adjustment, but still a very serious irregularity which I wanted the opponents warned about. As it turned out the opponents ignored the TD, so they ended up being booted.

[pbleighton]

"To my reading -- though I am hardly an expert -- reading Laws 9B and 75D of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make clear that the director MUST be called when a bid has been wrongly explained (which is an irregularity). Must be called. No discretion."

 

Nonsense. If an explanation is unclear (as IMO this one certainly was), most people I know will ask for an explanation rather than calling the director. To call the director after you have failed to ask for a clarification is IMO poor sportsmanship.

 

Again, this may be a language issue - if EW thought 6more 22-24 was clear, then

they have poor English skills (no criticism intended), and they are not guilty of poor sportsmanship. If they understand English well, and were just lazy, then...

 

"So blaming EW for calling the director -- if that happened; as jillybean notes, she does not know if they did -- would have been extraordinarily unfair. "Sorry EW, I'm penalizing you for calling me, as you were obliged to do..."

 

I am not suggesting any penalty, as you would know if you had read my post carefully. They were within their rights. They were also guilty of poor sportsmanship, if they did call the director after being lazy. BTW, if they didn't call the director, who did?

 

I'm also not being critical of people who call the director when an irregularity occurs - I do it myself. But this type of behavior, if EW did what I think they may have done, REALLY pisses me off.

 

Peter

[epeeist]

"To my reading -- though I am hardly an expert -- reading Laws 9B and 75D of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make clear that the director MUST be called when a bid has been wrongly explained (which is an irregularity). Must be called. No discretion."

 

Nonsense. If an explanation is unclear (as IMO this one certainly was), most people I know will ask for an explanation rather than calling the director. To call the director after you have failed to ask for a clarification is IMO poor sportsmanship.

 

Again, this may be a language issue - if EW thought 6more 22-24 was clear, then

they have poor English skills (no criticism intended), and they are not guilty of poor sportsmanship. If they understand English well, and were just lazy, then...

 

"So blaming EW for calling the director -- if that happened; as jillybean notes, she does not know if they did -- would have been extraordinarily unfair. "Sorry EW, I'm penalizing you for calling me, as you were obliged to do..."

 

I am not suggesting any penalty, as you would know if you had read my post carefully. They were within their rights. They were also guilty of poor sportsmanship, if they did call the director after being lazy. BTW, if they didn't call the director, who did?

 

I'm also not being critical of people who call the director when an irregularity occurs - I do it myself. But this type of behavior, if EW did what I think they may have done, REALLY pisses me off.

 

Peter

We're really engaged in a circular argument. Since I thought the explanation was perfectly clear (wrong, incomplete and misleading, but clear), I consider there to have been an irregularity. A misdescription which seemed perfectly clear, with the misdescription not becoming clear until later.

 

Given the premise that there was a misdescription not realized by EW until later -- which I understand, you disagree with -- a director call was appropriate.

 

I can't remember ever having been criticized for any lack of skill with using or understanding the English language. I am in no way insulted by your suggestion :) I simply disagree with it.

 

With respect to whether there was a diretor call, as jillybean noted, she doesn't know whether there was such, she was asked to look at the bidding by a kibitzer.

[jillybean]

Ahem, I have a confession and apology to make – I looked at the hand via lin file again and see that the alert is actually "multi 6 mor 22-24" so obviously a type-o - that some had already sugggested.

 

So now two lessons for me to learn

 

1. I know what multi 2♦ is

2. Don’t jump to conclusions

 

sheepishly,

jb