[greenender]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 5 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

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.

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. IMO there is also likely to be some positive correlation between the sort of players who don't have such precise agreements and the sort of players who forget which of 3D and 3S is stronger.

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. This reinforces my inclination to adjust.

[barmar]

I'm with Codo on this. Once you're in receipt of UI, you're often constrained when there are some close calls. Unless this is a 100% 4♠ bid, you're stuck.

It's unfortunate that the opponents asked (possibly) unnecessary questions that put you in this situation. But it's not entirely their fault, partner forgetting the system is also to blame. If he'd remembered what 3♦ meant he'd have bid game and you wouldn't have to override his decision.

[phil_20686]

greenender, on Feb 5 2010, 08:58 AM, said:

I'm with Roland here, however: the possibility of 2N being intended as a tactical manoeuvre of some sort suggests that there is a strong enough possibility that if responder had explained 3D as a maximum but still bid 3S, then opener would have passed, so pass is a logical alternative.

I think those that argue otherwise are in some danger of trying to justify what they are sure is the winning call, in the face of the UI, rather than observing the dictates of Law 73C and making every effort to take no advantage.

1) If west thought he had shown a maximum then some pairs would play 3s as a slam invitaion asking partner to show any control he may have below game. If this is the case obviously there is no adjustment.

2) If you think its a tactical manouver then you are surely ethically constrained to bid. Lets say that partner did have a random 6 count with 4-4 in the majors, maybe he was always planning to pllay in 3M if he can sign off - would you then rule this board from 3s-1 to 4s-2 say? on the grounds that bidding was a LA. We surely cannot have a system where he now gets punished whatever he does.

3)Even if this isnt forcing, its at least mildly invitational from teh logic of the auction. I have a maximum in an invitational auction i dont think pass is a LA in this sequence.
Partner cannot have a GF/invite in one suit and less than an invite in the other. So either he has invite in both suits, or GF in hearts and invite in spades. Other wise he would just bid his weak suit and raise 2s to 3s (would depend on exact agreements whawt happens when he has weak sapdeas and invitainal hearts but it surely starts with 2s if in any way normal). In short, I dont think there is any hand responder can have legitamately when partner is not at least invitational in spades.

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on Feb 5 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

2) If you think its a tactical manouver then you are surely ethically constrained to bid. Lets say that partner did have a random 6 count with 4-4 in the majors, maybe he was always planning to pllay in 3M if he can sign off - would you then rule this board from 3s-1 to 4s-2 say? on the grounds that bidding was a LA. We surely cannot have a system where he now gets punished whatever he does.

This really depends on whether 3M is truly a signoff, and we don't know whether it is.

[lamford]

This seems one for a poll, so we would need to know the approximate strength of West - we have a rough idea of the style - someone who doesn't call a spade a spade, and who opens a multi with two aces.

Given that partner showed game interest opposite a maximum with hearts, our 10xx in that suit is pulling its weight, and bidding game looks automatic. I polled three people on OKB and all bid 4S. Given that I would not open a multi with 6-4 in the majors, I would bid 4H, which must be this hand type, but it is not clear that this would not show four hearts for the free-wheeling West.

And as Frances says, we do need to find out their system.

[pran]

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.

However, when opener receives the UI that responder has mistaken his specification of a stronger hand to indicate a weaker hand and then decided to stop short of game I cannot understand how opener shall be allowed to compensate for this mistake and bid a successful game?

I really do not see any problem for the Director?

(Bidding at the three-level as a direct response to a 2♦ multi opening bid should never be any alternative!)

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on Feb 5 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

1) If west thought he had shown a maximum then some pairs would play 3s as a slam invitaion asking partner to show any control he may have below game. If this is the case obviously there is no adjustment.

bingo. And a PP for not bidding 4c?

[peachy]

Codo, on Feb 5 2010, 06:27 AM, said:

Nigel,

no need to discuss the merrits and pros of bidding 4 spade now. Without the UI there is a big chance that this is the winning call. But you cannot convince me that it is a must and that passing is no LA.

If you are not convinved, then we must re-examine the facts, again. It is not a question of merits at all.

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.

If Fact 2 had been "Opener has a maximum" instead of "Opener has a supermaximum" then there might just barely possibly be something to think about. And if opener had a minimum or borderline maximum, only then should there be an adjustment due to use of UI.

[awm]

I know that in my partnerships 2NT is an asking bid. It's not an invite.

We occasionally mess around in these sorts of auctions. I don't think this is "psyching" -- the 2NT bidder assumes captaincy, asks what he wants to know, and places the contract. He didn't "show" anything.

Thus I think passing 3♠ is a LA.

Perhaps in other partnerships where they never mess around with a 2NT response that doesn't have a real fit and real invitational values, there is a coherent argument that passing is not a LA. But I don't think we can assume this unless opponents have pretty clear documentation to that effect (i.e. that they are game-forced when opener has a max).

[peachy]

awm, on Feb 5 2010, 01:26 PM, said:

I know that in my partnerships 2NT is an asking bid. It's not an invite.

We occasionally mess around in these sorts of auctions. I don't think this is "psyching" -- the 2NT bidder assumes captaincy, asks what he wants to know, and places the contract. He didn't "show" anything.

Thus I think passing 3♠ is a LA.

Perhaps in other partnerships where they never mess around with a 2NT response that doesn't have a real fit and real invitational values, there is a coherent argument that passing is not a LA. But I don't think we can assume this unless opponents have pretty clear documentation to that effect (i.e. that they are game-forced when opener has a max).

I play the style that awm describes (sometimes messing with the 2NT inquiry). But playing that style, I think I might feel ethically obliged to bid to a failing 4S instead of Pass with an undeniable supermax, if partner broke tempo, while if playing the style where 2NT is a true invite, the only LA with supermax is 4S.

[hotShot]

Quote

2NT is a strongish enquiry

Obviously that needs to be specified more precise.

[jdonn]

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.

[ggwhiz]

Very easy roll back to 3 spades.

Most of the reasoning that says there is no LA to a 4 spade bid says that it is because it's a 1 spade opener!

Quote

2NT is a strongish enquiry

Doesn't matter, 3 spades was NOT forwad going (enough) after I've shown my max....... until pard explained it as showing a min.

[nigel_k]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 6 2010, 01:48 AM, said:

All the replies saying that this isn't a "normal" weak two, it's stronger than many one-bids etc, are missing the point. The player who held this hand clearly considered it to be within range for his multi, or else he would not have opened it 2D.

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.

I've already tried to explain this cannot be a straight system question. As a matter of logic, not system, opener can always bid one more. I'm not suggesting that 3♠ is forcing or even especially encouraging, just that it cannot make sense to bid 2NT with the desire to always sign off in 3♠ opposite any hand with spades. In think people are confusing this with a situation where the asker signs off in game, which is quite different.

I accept that the player evaluated the hand as worth opening only a weak two and is stuck with that (mis)evaluation for the rest of the auction. But that doesn't prevent him realizing this is an absolute maximum and therefore the sort of hand that has an automatic 4♠ bid over 3♠. Yes it depends what the range of their multi is, but if the upper limit is so enormous that this is not an absolute maximum then that is so abnormal that I won't consider it unless the OP explicitly says that is the case.

[blackshoe]

The question whether to adjust the score hinges on the answer to the question whether pass is an LA - for one of this player's peers. So find several of those peers, and ask them what they would do. If an insufficient number of those peers would pass, then pass is not an LA - how many better players would pass (or not pass) is irrelevant.

[karlson]

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?

[nigel_k]

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.

[hotShot]

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 ♠.

[NickRW]

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. Only if, as director, I hear unclear answers would I make an assumption (or ask the player's peers for their views).

But I must admit, if I were one of the peers asked, I would have to say that in such an auction with (or indeed without) such a misexplanation from p, I would feel constrained to pass and hope that the cards sat badly for the game contract.

Nick

[pran]

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 I understand your question correct then with a "strong" weak 2 in hearts opener will respond 4♥ to the sequence: 2♦ - 2♠ - ?

(With a "weak" weak 2 in hearts he will respond 3♥)