[Cyberyeti]

---

2♦ was announced by south as a multi.

On the card it clearly said they were playing benji, so this was an unconditional GF and that was what N intended it as.

N admitted he bid 4♠ using the UI as he was unaware of his obligations. He also gave some body English that the explanation wasn't right and tanked a long time before bidding 4♠.

Playing director was called twice but failed to appear at the end of the auction, this was referred to him after the end of the round, which happened to be the last one of the evening.

S had already left by the time director got round to this, so we couldn't ask him why he bid 3♦ over a multi with his hand rather than the normal 2♠.

Any suggestions how to sort this out ? 2 things that might happen: 2♦-3♦-3♠-P/anything else and bidding too many opposite a diamond positive to the benji 2♦.

[nige1]

IMO...
A Benjamin or Multi 2♦ should be alerted, even in jurisdictions where some 2-openers are announced.
In that case, whatever the actual partnership agreement, the initial problem was created by South's infraction.
Furthermore, on the face of it, North and South each gave UI unnecessarily and used it quite blatantly, so the director should impose PPs on them both.
These infractions have so contaminated the auction that the director should probably scrap the board and assign a score.

[Cyberyeti]

The actual result on the board 4♠= at this table, 5♦-1 at the other so the team committing the infraction gained significantly (spades 5-2, diamonds 4-2).

[wanoff]

If South was woken up by North's body language then he should pass if it was a weak only Multi. I'm not a big fan of 2♠.

[Cyberyeti]

wanoff, on 2016-October-21, 17:21, said:

If South was woken up by North's body language then he should pass if it was a weak only Multi. I'm not a big fan of 2♠.

Well 3♦ for most people is either inv or F (if it shows diamonds at all) and an overbid, what are you going to do over 3♠ showing a weak 2 in spades that has nothing else to bid ? Multi would not be weak only in this case, but probably doesn't have a strong 2 in spades in it (I believe they played multi and strong 2Ms), so unclear what 4♠ would mean. I would probably pass a multi that had strong options on the grounds that frequency suggests long odds on a weak 2♠. The body language was more while N was thinking at his second bid than before S's 3♦.

[mr1303]

My thoughts:

1) 4S is clearly suggested by the UI over 3S, so 4S is disallowed. PP for flagrant abuse of UI unless NS are complete beginners, in which case they get a stern talking to.

2) Can I use weighted scores? Over 3S, I think South will pass some high % of the time, and bid 3NT some other % of the time. Over this North will bid 4H, which I can imagine South passing. I don't know how well this will play without seeing the full hands, but I can imagine that going off, especially if North draws trumps before playing spades.

So I adjust to maybe 70% 3S+1 and 30% 4H-1 depending on how the full hand is.

[Cyberyeti]

mr1303, on 2016-October-21, 19:24, said:

My thoughts:

1) 4S is clearly suggested by the UI over 3S, so 4S is disallowed. PP for flagrant abuse of UI unless NS are complete beginners, in which case they get a stern talking to.

2) Can I use weighted scores? Over 3S, I think South will pass some high % of the time, and bid 3NT some other % of the time. Over this North will bid 4H, which I can imagine South passing. I don't know how well this will play without seeing the full hands, but I can imagine that going off, especially if North draws trumps before playing spades.

So I adjust to maybe 70% 3S+1 and 30% 4H-1 depending on how the full hand is.

4♥ can't really fail, hearts are 4-2 and in theory you can make 5. N is a keen bit better than beginner.

My worry about ruling 3♠ is that 3♦ is a clear indication that he wasn't going to play in spades, or he'd have bid 2♠ instead.

[StevenG]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-October-21, 16:59, said:

The actual result on the board 4♠= at this table, 5♦-1 at the other so the team committing the infraction gained significantly (spades 5-2, diamonds 4-2).

The non-offenders' team-mates misbid to a failing contract. Surely that doesn't mean you have to manipulate the ruling at this table.

[Cyberyeti]

StevenG, on 2016-October-22, 04:44, said:

The non-offenders' team-mates misbid to a failing contract. Surely that doesn't mean you have to manipulate the ruling at this table.

No, but it's an indication that it's not straightforward with a non UI auction (I have no idea what team mates did), and 2♦-3♦ is often a better suit than it is here so 5♦ could be in the frame (where do you want to be at teams opposite void, KJx, KQJ10xx, xxxx for example).

[weejonnie]

Well first of all - South shouldn't have 'announced' that the bid was 'multi' - he should have alerted and then (when asked) explained as multi.

Both North & South have and have given UI.

First North: The UI is that South thinks North has a multi and that 3♦ is whatever that bid means over a multi 2♦. (No idea, presumably it says that even though you may have a weak 2 in a major I want to play in diamonds - so suggests 7 diamonds. As for strength, well it shows less than game forcing.) Note that this is not so far away from what the response over 2♦ probably did mean to North - a positive response with a decent diamond suit.

Absent the UI, North would simply bid his best suit at the 3-level (as they are in a game-forcing situation.) Bidding 4♠ (which presumably would show a solid suit) is the LA that has to be discarded.

Now South: The UI is that North does not think that his bid was the multi. South has bid Diamonds suggesting an alternative contract and North has gone back to Spades. Unless South thinks North plays a Multi that has a strong major as an option (which is possible since to South the 2♣ call by North must be the game-forcing bid and not (as in Benji) 8 Playing tricks in an unspecified suit) then I think he would have to pass. (leaving the final contract in 3♠). If he does think North has 8 playing tricks in Spades then there is a possible 3NT response to consider - and North possibly raising to 6NT or 6♠.

So the short answer is that we can't rule exactly unless we know more about what system South was playing. This may be a case for awarding a weighted score.

3♠ +1 : N/S +170 : 70%
6♠ -2 : N/S -200 : 30%

Oh - and advise NS of their right to appeal.

[sanst]

South's departure makes it rather difficult for the TD, who has probably no more information than we. If there was no good reason for S to leave before the director was available, that deserves a DP (or would that be a PP?).
Although a 3♦ answer after a multi 2♦ has no standard meaning like 2♠ or 2NT, it's usually played as a good hand with 5+ diamonds, at least 2 hearts and spades and forcing but not GF. To bid 3♦ with this hand, is madness, but this S did it nonetheless. If N bids 3♠, indicating a GF hand with spades, S will probably pass, but an enthusiastic N might go for slam with 4NT. Where that will end is hard to see, it could be anything from 5♠ to 7♦. I'm quite satisfied with the proposed 70% 3♠+1 and 30% something -2. Apart from that, a PP for the use of UI is in order.

[Cyberyeti]

TBF S is very elderly and has a long late night journey home, so I'm not surprised he left as fast as he did.

Part of N's tank was that he never plays a multi so had no clue what 3♦ meant, and it's never been explained to him how the UI laws work.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-October-22, 09:42, said:

Part of N's tank was that he never plays a multi so had no clue what 3♦ meant, and it's never been explained to him how the UI laws work.

It's totally irrelevant for N what 3♦ means after a multi 2♦ opening call, the only thing that matters is what 3♦ means after a 2♦ Benji opening and he should bid according to that. Or, maybe, this pair has no real agreement after this sequence? S very elderly, N knowing next to nothing about UI, it sounds like a not very good pair playing bridge for leisure and not bothering much about the rules of the game.
S thus had a good reason to leave. Pity, but it can't be helped an no penalty is in order for this. Actually, I don't think any penalty is in order, but an explanation or even a lecture about UI most certainly is.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2016-October-22, 16:04, said:

It's totally irrelevant for N what 3♦ means after a multi 2♦ opening call, the only thing that matters is what 3♦ means after a 2♦ Benji opening and he should bid according to that.

You know that, I know that, he didn't which is why he thought

Quote

Or, maybe, this pair has no real agreement after this sequence? S very elderly, N knowing next to nothing about UI, it sounds like a not very good pair playing bridge for leisure and not bothering much about the rules of the game.
S thus had a good reason to leave. Pity, but it can't be helped an no penalty is in order for this. Actually, I don't think any penalty is in order, but an explanation or even a lecture about UI most certainly is.

I think a penalty has to be in order - the 4♠ bid blatantly uses UI (as was admitted by the player himself), he should have bid 3♠, the problem is what you assume is likely after that.

S may be very elderly, but has been in Norfolk terms a decent player for a long time, much more experienced than N.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2016-October-22, 16:04, said:

It's totally irrelevant for N what 3♦ means after a multi 2♦ opening call

He's required to NOT do what's suggested by partner's intended meaning of the 3♦ bid. But that means he has to know what it means so he can avoid it.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2016-October-23, 15:27, said:

He's required to NOT do what's suggested by partner's intended meaning of the 3♦ bid. But that means he has to know what it means so he can avoid it.

Not so. He has to do whatever is required after 3♦ and his 2♦ opening call. You're supposed not to hear partners explanation. And what do you propose he should have done if he hadn't a clue what 'multi' means?

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2016-October-24, 03:41, said:

Not so. He has to do whatever is required after 3♦ and his 2♦ opening call. You're supposed not to hear partners explanation. And what do you propose he should have done if he hadn't a clue what 'multi' means?

He has a clue what multi means, just no clue what a 3♦ response to a multi is.

And I agree he has to bid as if partner has bid a positive 3♦ to his benji 2♦, but between the reasonable alternatives, he is bound to choose the one that caters least for the UI, but he doesn't know what that is due to not knowing what 3♦ shows over a multi.

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-October-21, 16:13, said:

---

N admitted he bid 4♠ using the UI as he was unaware of his obligations. He also gave some body English that the explanation wasn't right and tanked a long time before bidding 4♠.

4♠ is obviously disallowed so assuming that the 3♦ bid is allowed, the result is 3♠+1.

I am not sure if the 3♦ bid is allowed if the "body English" was prior to the 3♦ bid. If S really knows multi then 2♠ (or maybe pass) is more normal than 3♦, and both are likely to lead to disaster opposite a benji 2♦. An auction like
2♦-2♠
4♠-pass
could make them land on their feet, but more likely they will end up in slam, or 2♦, or some other silly contract.

This can become a fairly complex weighted score. Maybe I would just go for the lazy solution and allow the 3♦ bid and adjust to 3♠+1.

[blackshoe]

"N admitted he bid 4♠ using the UI"

Fair enough, but... The information that South thinks that North's 2♦ was multi is extraneous. What is unauthorized to North is any inference from that extraneous information (EI) that demonstrably could suggest a call or play. So when South bid 3♦, what inference did north take from the EI about the meaning of 3♦? How did whatever that inference was suggest bidding 4♠? (See below).

It's been a long time since I played Benji, but it seems to me 3♦ would be some kind of positive response, suggesting that there may be a slam somewhere if they can find a fit. So what would North do absent UI? Seems clear he would bid 3♠, and that he bid four because he was afraid South would pass. So North failed to "carefully avoid taking advantage" of the inference that led to that fear.

Would South bid again if North bid 3♠? Hard to say, in the circumstances, but I would expect not.

If South has UI before bidding 3♦ then we have to ask what the LAs to 3♦ are. Will the UI suggest to South that North's 2♦ is Benji? I suppose it could. It could suggest that 2♦ is a weak two. In the latter case, it seems to me that South's LAs might be pass (highly unlikely), and any number of diamonds up to five, with three (hoping to get out cheaply) and five (based on LOTT) as most likely. If the UI suggests 2♦ is Benji, what are the LAs? Pass is not - 2♦ is forcing. I suppose playing Benji 3♦ is a possibility. Is there an alternative? Perhaps 5♦. It seems to me that if South has UI from North's reaction to his announcement, the score should be adjusted to 5♦, perhaps doubled, making however many it makes (or doesn't make).

If South doesn't have UI, then 3♦ stands, and now we consider what might have happened had North known of and acted upon his obligations. In that case, it seems adjusting to 3♠ making however many it makes (4?) is appropriate.

The director should make sure that both North and South (next time the director sees him) understand their obligations in the presence of UI, the impact of the law in MI cases, and the proper way to alert partner's calls. He may also owe the table an apology for not being available when he was first called.

Penalize South for leaving quickly? I don't think so. He had good reason, it seems, and no instruction from the director to stick around. As for that making things more difficult for the TD, so what? What would the TD have done if South had had a heart attack? The director would still not be able to ask South anything, so that would be unchanged. I don't think anyone would suggest penalizing South in that circumstance. At least, I hope not.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2016-October-24, 08:54, said:

If the UI suggests 2♦ is Benji, what are the LAs? Pass is not - 2♦ is forcing. I suppose playing Benji 3♦ is a possibility. Is there an alternative? Perhaps 5♦.

5♦ can't be an LA if 2♦ is benji. Playing Benji, you respond a positive 3♦ or a 2♥ relay.