[pran]

nigel_k, on Feb 6 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

karlson, on Feb 6 2010, 06:30 PM, said:

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

Who wouldn't want to bid up to 4♥ with that hand?

Responder should either bid 2♠ over 2♦ and raise 3♥ to 4♥, or just bid 3♠ directly over 2♦. Bidding 2NT does nothing to help to you get to the right level in either hearts or spades and lets opponents have extra turns to call.

My original example, xx AQx Axxx Kxxx, is the sort of responding hand that makes sense for this sequence.

In multi, the way I have learned it, bidding a suit directly at the three-level over a 2♦ opening bid essentially means: "Forget about your weak suit, I want to play in my suit regardless of what you have".

2♠ tells opener: Raise directly to 4♥ if you have a good "weak" 2♥, stop in 3♥ if you have the weal variant, and pass if you have a weak spade suit regardless of your strength.

2NT takes control of the auction and opener's only task then is to clarify to responder his hand so that responder can decide the contract.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 08:38 PM, said:

I have had the agreement before that showing a maximum is automatically game forcing. But short of that agreement existing how is pass not at the very least an LA? This is easy.

Since 3♣/3♦ show the minimum hands, 3♠ would show a maximum with hearts. So presumably this pair is forced to game once opener shows a maximum with hearts, and then it is likely that they also are if he has spades, I think.

Of course from West's perspective he has shown a maximum with his 3♦ bid so one might wonder whether they would also have the agreement that 2NT forces to game opposite a max if they had played 3♦ as showing a maximum

[pran]

hotShot, on Feb 6 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

karlson, on Feb 6 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

I still don't understand Nigel's argument. Why can't responder want to play a game opposite max with hearts but stop otherwise? Maybe xx Kxxx AJxxxx x or so? If responder bids 2s, is opener obligated to bid something other than 3h with a max?

If responder bids 2♠ and opener has ♠, than opener will pass 2♠.
If opener has ♥'s bidding will continue.
So if responder wanted to play game opposite ♥ with a max and stop otherwise, than 2♠ is the bid that stops in 2♠.
Most Multi player I know won't correct 2♠ simply to 3♥, since ♥ is set as suit whenever bidding is going on, opener uses the bids 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥ to show suit quality and strength. Over this answer responder can bid game or sign off.

Whenever responder bids 2NT he does not have the good ♥ bad ♠ hand,
he's got to have an invite to game in ♠.

Not neccessarily. "Got to" is too strong. I would agree "ought to", but remember that the prime function of a 2NT response is to take control of the auction.

(The 2NT bidder doesn't really show anything except being ready for the three level.)

[bluejak]

mr1303, on Feb 5 2010, 01:52 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ AJ109xx ♥ 10xx ♦ x ♣ Axx

2D (X) 2NT (P)
3D (P) 3S (P)
4S All pass

This hand opens a multi 2D (weak 2 either major or 20-22 balanced). Opponents ask at every opportunity.

2NT is a strongish enquiry, 3D showed a maximum, but partner explained it as showing a minimum hand with spades, 3S was a sign-off.

4S makes 10 tricks. Do you adjust?

I have not read this thread yet, so this is a comment on seeing the first couple of posts only. You have to know how they play 2NT. The way I play it is that it may be weakish with fits, and 3♠ here is a signoff. If so, ruling it back to 3♠ +1 is completely routine.

However, some people play that it unambiguously shows game try values opposite a weak two in either suit. If so, a pass of 3♠ is not an LA, so result stands.

Of course, a sensible pair who play the latter should also have agreed a meaning for 3♠ here - perhaps choose 4♠ or 3NT? - and it is worrying if they have not. So I would ask a lot of questions before allowing the result to stand.

jdonn, on Feb 5 2010, 02:07 AM, said:

I'm a little confused. Is the question essentially whether the UI from partner's explanation is the fault of the opponents for asking a lot of unnecessary questions?

Under what Law would this be illegal?

[bluejak]

[quote name='nigel_k' date='Feb 5 2010, 10:13 AM']Passing 3[sp] ia not a logical alternative if the field is a decent standard.

3[sp] is not a signoff - we are always free to bid one more in this kind of auction with a good maximum. We have a huge hand that was too good to open a weak two in the first place (Kaplan/Rubens 12.75). Our suit can play well opposite a small doubleton and if partner has a stiff spade and game interest opposite hearts only he would/should have bid 2[sp] not 2NT.[/quote]
That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.



[quote name='helene_t' date='Feb 5 2010, 11:30 AM']How can 3[sp] be a sign-off? Is 2NT a controlled psyche or something?

In normal methods, 2NT forces to game opposite any absolute maximum. It is possible that 3[sp] is non-forcing because 3[di] has some range, but at least it must be invitational.[/quote]
That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.



[quote name='FrancesHinden' date='Feb 5 2010, 02:48 PM']This seems to be a straight system question: if 2NT took control of the auction, then it's absolutely clear to adjust to 3S+1 (assuming it made 10 tricks). If 2NT forced to game opposite any maximum multi, it's clear not to adjust. If 2NT promised at least invitational values opposite both majors, then it depends what the range of their 2D multi is.[/quote]
This is basically the point.



[quote name='greenender' date='Feb 5 2010, 03:06 PM'][quote name='FrancesHinden' date='Feb 5 2010, 08:48 AM']This seems to be a straight system question: if 2NT took control of the auction, then it's absolutely clear to adjust to 3S+1 (assuming it made 10 tricks). If 2NT forced to game opposite any maximum multi, it's clear not to adjust. If 2NT promised at least invitational values opposite both majors, then it depends what the range of their 2D multi is.[/quote]
Quite so, but...

I'm not sure that the TD is necessarily going to be able to find this out. Remember that in some parts of the UK the Multi is popular amongst ordinary club players, who don't necessarily think in those terms.[/quote]
You do not think they can express this fact?

[quote name='greenender' date='Feb 5 2010, 03:06 PM']However, if these are the sort of players involved, my instinct is that their philosophy is more likely to be along the lines of "responder is in charge after 2N" rather than having specific agreements as to what is forcing opposite what.[/quote]
And this one?



[quote name='pran' date='Feb 5 2010, 06:45 PM']As a long-time user of multi I am mildly surprised of this thread. I may of course be wrong, but my experience is that after 2[di] the responder bids:
- 2[he] requesting a pass or correct (to 2[sp] or to 2NT). If opener corrects to 2[sp] then responder can make an invitation to game with 3[sp] (or possibly even go directly to game).
- 2[sp] inviting to game in hearts if this is opener's suit, requesting a pass if opener has a weak spade hand.
- 2NT declaring responder as captain in this auction and initially requesting a specification of opener's hand.

Whether 3m shows the weaker hand and 3M shows the stronger hand or vice versa is a matter of agreement and really immaterial.[/quote]
That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.



[quote name='peachy' date='Feb 5 2010, 07:02 PM']Fact 1.  Responder's 2NT was an invite.
Fact 2.  Opener has a supermaximum. 

Given that these are the facts, opener must go to game and Pass is not a logical alternative.[/quote]
That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.



[quote name='ggwhiz' date='Feb 5 2010, 10:07 PM']Doesn't matter, 3 spades was NOT forwad going (enough) after I've shown my max....... until pard explained it as showing a min.[/quote]
That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.



[quote name='nigel_k' date='Feb 5 2010, 10:28 PM']As a matter of logic, not system, opener can always bid one more. I'm not suggesting that 3[sp] is forcing or even especially encouraging, just that it cannot make sense to bid 2NT with the desire to always sign off in 3[sp] opposite any hand with spades.[/quote]
That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.



[quote name='NickRW' date='Feb 6 2010, 06:02 PM']Agree with the posters who say that we need to know the pairs methods.

1. For me, at this vul, the hand is max - at any other vul it is too strong - but I am quite sure not everyone would agree.

2. Again, for me, 2N, without fit for both majors, shows a hand a touch above a min opening.  Can shade down slightly with moderate fit for both majors (Hx or xxx in both) and with really good fit for both, though the normal reponse might be 3[he] or above, artistic license is allowed - which rather strongly places responder as captain.  However, again, not all pairs allow so much freedom to responder.

So, for my money, no decision is possible without knowing exactly what the agreements are.[/quote]
The voice of sanity.



[quote name='pran' date='Feb 6 2010, 08:49 PM']In multi, the way I have learned it, bidding a suit directly at the three-level over a 2[di] opening bid essentially means: "Forget about your weak suit, I want to play in my suit regardless of what you have".

2[sp] tells opener: Raise directly to 4[he] if you have a good "weak" 2[he], stop in 3[he] if you have the weal variant, and pass if you have a weak spade suit regardless of your strength.

2NT takes control of the auction and opener's only task then is to clarify to responder his hand so that responder can decide the contract.[/quote]
That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.



Putting it simply, you really cannot give a correct ruling in a case like this one without knowing the system, and assuming the pair concerned follow your methods leads to incompetent rulings.

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Feb 6 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

NickRW, on Feb 6 2010, 06:02 PM, said:

Agree with the posters who say that we need to know the pairs methods.

1. For me, at this vul, the hand is max - at any other vul it is too strong - but I am quite sure not everyone would agree.

2. Again, for me, 2N, without fit for both majors, shows a hand a touch above a min opening.  Can shade down slightly with moderate fit for both majors (Hx or xxx in both) and with really good fit for both, though the normal reponse might be 3♥ or above, artistic license is allowed - which rather strongly places responder as captain.  However, again, not all pairs allow so much freedom to responder.

So, for my money, no decision is possible without knowing exactly what the agreements are.

The voice of sanity.

Wow, David thinks I am sane

There must be hope for me yet

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 6 2010, 11:02 PM, said:

pran, on Feb 5 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

As a long-time user of multi I am mildly surprised of this thread. I may of course be wrong, but my experience is that after 2♦ the responder bids:
- 2♥ requesting a pass or correct (to 2♠ or to 2NT). If opener corrects to 2♠ then responder can make an invitation to game with 3♠ (or possibly even go directly to game).
- 2♠ inviting to game in hearts if this is opener's suit, requesting a pass if opener has a weak spade hand.
- 2NT declaring responder as captain in this auction and initially requesting a specification of opener's hand.

Whether 3m shows the weaker hand and 3M shows the stronger hand or vice versa is a matter of agreement and really immaterial.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

pran, on Feb 6 2010, 08:49 PM, said:

In multi, the way I have learned it, bidding a suit directly at the three-level over a 2♦ opening bid essentially means: "Forget about your weak suit, I want to play in my suit regardless of what you have".

2♠ tells opener: Raise directly to 4♥ if you have a good "weak" 2♥, stop in 3♥ if you have the weal variant, and pass if you have a weak spade suit regardless of your strength.

2NT takes control of the auction and opener's only task then is to clarify to responder his hand so that responder can decide the contract.

That sounds like your agreements rather than those of the pair in the OP so are irrelevant.

These do not sound like my agreements, they are my agreements, and I clearly stated so.

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.

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?

The (to me) most important fact in this case is that the opener has received UI to the effect that his partner has incorrectly understood his call to specify a minimum hand while he actually has indicated a maximum hand.

Shall opener be allowed to compensate for this misunderstanding by his partner? That can only make sense to me if opener shows that regardless of later calls from his partner he would always go to game once partner bids 2NT over a multi. And he is a long way from showing that. (Why did he not answer 4♠ to the 2NT bid?)

[mr1303]

Apologies for not replying again sooner, but I've been away from my computer for a couple of days.

What actually happened wasn't quite as I described. I was North. My partner actually passed 3S, which made 10 tricks (on rather a poor play by me, since most people were making 11 or 12), as she felt that because of the UI she had to pass, and we received a zero as a result. I felt that partner could have bid 4S as she had a super-max.

As regarding our agreements, I actually had them right (and had the info on the card to prove it) - 3D actually showed a min and 3S would show a max (with spades). A 3S responder would actually be a sign-off since it had declined the game try opposite a minimum, so the issue as to whether or not 3S is a sign-off opposite a known maximum (in theory) doesn't come up, but she plays it differently with another partner and as a result was confused.

With the other partner, she has no agreement as to whether a 3S bid here would be forcing or not, but she thought it probably wasn't.

[peachy]

mr1303, on Feb 7 2010, 06:49 PM, said:

Apologies for not replying again sooner, but I've been away from my computer for a couple of days.

What actually happened wasn't quite as I described. I was North. My partner actually passed 3S, which made 10 tricks (on rather a poor play by me, since most people were making 11 or 12), as she felt that because of the UI she had to pass, and we received a zero as a result. I felt that partner could have bid 4S as she had a super-max.

As regarding our agreements, I actually had them right (and had the info on the card to prove it) - 3D actually showed a min and 3S would show a max (with spades). A 3S responder would actually be a sign-off since it had declined the game try opposite a minimum, so the issue as to whether or not 3S is a sign-off opposite a known maximum (in theory) doesn't come up, but she plays it differently with another partner and as a result was confused.

With the other partner, she has no agreement as to whether a 3S bid here would be forcing or not, but she thought it probably wasn't.

Given your described agreements, your partner did the right thing by passing! Too bad the opponents were asking at every turn, I would make a note of who they were...

[bluejak]

pran, on Feb 7 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

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.

pran, on Feb 7 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

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.

pran, on Feb 7 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

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.

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 8 2010, 02:46 AM, said:

pran, on Feb 7 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

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.

pran, on Feb 7 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

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.

pran, on Feb 7 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

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]

mycroft, on Feb 9 2010, 01:54 AM, said:

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.