[pescetom]

MP

---

Club tournament, F2F.
NS are experienced players but not frequent partners.

The 2♦ opening is announced by North as Multi and on request of West, explained as "weak two in an undisclosed major OR a three-suited hand OR a strong single-suited minor".
South bids 3NT and all pass.
West leads ♦J and NS take 10 tricks for 3NT+1.
West calls Director, observing that South's hand and bid are not consistent with the explanation supplied and that he fears EW may be damaged in some way.
South says he assumed that Multi was weak two or 18-19 balanced and North says he expected that South would assume North's usual Multi.
At the other tables, all played 3NT, usually Declared by South and receiving ♦J lead. 3NT+1 was common.
How do you proceed and rule?

[jillybean]

Score stands, multiple penalties in order.

[barmar]

This situation is not well addressed in the Laws. To distinguish between misbid and misexplanation, there has to be an actual agreement that one of them deviates from. In this case, they had the agreement to [lay Multi, but hadn't discussed it in detail to determine the precise variant they're playing.

I guess you have to say that North's explanation is incorrect, since he couldn't be sure that South was playing the variant he assumed. Either he should explain all the potential meanings for South's bid, or say that there are other meanings besides the weak 2 and 3-suiter, but he's not sure what they are.

Does West claim that they would have made a different lead with the explanation that South could have a strong balanced hand? Unless there's a good argument that the defense would have been more successful with the correct explanation, I don't see any damage.

I don't think there's any automatic penalty for MI, we just restore equity if it has damaged the opponents. So result stands, and we remind NS that they should have more discussion when they agree to play complex conventions.

[blackshoe]

Jilly: what penalties?

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2026-February-06, 14:26, said:

Jilly: what penalties?

I would like to start issuing penalties for players who explain bids as 'convention name' and for pairs who play complex agreements, have forgets and take advantage of UI.
Score stands, East West weren't damaged but North South shouldn't be playing sanctioned games and only receive a slap on the hand for these infractions.

[mycroft]

I don't know the followups for "North's usual Multi", but I bet 3NT isn't part of them.

I also bet that South's intention was to show 18-19 balanced, and I would guess 3NT opposite a potential zero-count isn't how it's done in South's system. In fact, I'd guess 2NT is the call.

I also bet that South knows how North will interpret 2NT, and it a) won't be Natural and b) won't be passed (even with a zero count).

I'm speaking out of my hat, but if 2♦ was just Alerted without any explanation, the auction would go 2♦-[ed: 2♥;] 2NT[-]3minor (which one depends on what 2NT is in North's system)[;] NT system response, and they'll end up either in something stupid like 3♥ or way too high before it's obvious the auction has gone off the rails. And South knows this because he's heard North's explanation. So South hits the magic "3NT is always to play" button to bypass all of this. Sure, he might catch a zero-count and go off, but it won't be worse than anything else at the 3 level, and he'll stop at the 3 level.

I will admit I haven't seen "Unauthorized Panic" in NT for a while, if ever; but that's clearly what it is.

Now, there's a lot of speculation here - especially given "I don't play Multi at all, and when I did, it never had a strong option". But what we do is find out (or already know, because it's "standard" in Italy) what North's rebid system is for the strong hands, and what South's rebid is in his system for the 18-19 balanced hand. And then work out, from those conflicting systems, what the auction would be, and where it would stop (and whether it would be doubled). And since I bet it's not N/S +430, we assign that score.

We might also ask South, as we get him to explain his systemic rebids, why he bid 3NT instead. And if he's at the level where he should know better (or if he's a compatriot of one of mine in the "if you're not listening to what partner says, you're leaving matchpoints on the table" world), then maybe the adjusted score isn't enough to stop this in future. If he's not at that level yet, a good explanation about why a penalty might be in order if he was more experienced suffices.

[Edited: I saw I missed North's 2♥ response in my "recreate the auction". Blame the Sectional.]

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2026-February-06, 20:58, said:

I don't know the followups for "North's usual Multi", but I bet 3NT isn't part of them.

I also bet that South's intention was to show 18-19 balanced, and I would guess 3NT opposite a potential zero-count isn't how it's done in South's system. In fact, I'd guess 2NT is the call.

I also bet that South knows how North will interpret 2NT, and it a) won't be Natural and b) won't be passed (even with a zero count).

I'm speaking out of my hat, but if 2♦ was just Alerted without any explanation, the auction would go 2♦-2NT; 3minor (which one depends on what 2NT is in North's system)-NT system response, and they'll end up either in something stupid like 3♥ or way too high before it's obvious the auction has gone off the rails. And South knows this because he's heard North's explanation. So South hits the magic "3NT is always to play" button to bypass all of this. Sure, he might catch a zero-count and go off, but it won't be worse than anything else at the 3 level, and he'll stop at the 3 level.

I will admit I haven't seen "Unauthorized Panic" in NT for a while, if ever; but that's clearly what it is.

Now, there's a lot of speculation here - especially given "I don't play Multi at all, and when I did, it never had a strong option". But what we do is find out (or already know, because it's "standard" in Italy) what North's rebid system is for the strong hands, and what South's rebid is in his system for the 18-19 balanced hand. And then work out, from those conflicting systems, what the auction would be, and where it would stop (and whether it would be doubled). And since I bet it's not N/S +430, we assign that score.

We might also ask South, as we get him to explain his systemic rebids, why he bid 3NT instead. And if he's at the level where he should know better (or if he's a compatriot of one of mine in the "if you're not listening to what partner says, you're leaving matchpoints on the table" world), then maybe the adjusted score isn't enough to stop this in future. If he's not at that level yet, a good explanation about why a penalty might be in order if he was more experienced suffices.

It is reassuring to see that I am not insane, or at least not alone
I presented this same problem to our regional directors and everyone shrugged it off as a normal result of the normal contract, the convention mishap did not influence the lead or defence and the lead makes no difference anyway.
And yet all of them play bridge and most have directed with screens.
Perhaps they should be obliged to play occasionally on BBO I did hope barmar at least would spot the difference that would have made.

[pescetom]

Just to provide some NS answers to the questions that Director should have asked:

For South, the systemic rebid to show 18-19 balanced after 2♦ - 2♥ is 2NT. 3NT is undefined.

For North, 3NT of opener is undefined. 2NT shows a 3-suited hand and obliges 3♣.

For South, 3♣ over 2NT is Puppet Stayman and the response is 3♦ showing one or both 4 card majors.

For North, 3♦ is shortage and he will now bid preference for one of the other suits. I don't know what bid he would choose, but say 3♥.

For South, 3♥ is 4 card spades and he will bid 3♠ to show fit.

For North, 3♠ is unclear, but presumably a control-bid showing a hand ideal to play in hearts.


And so on in a spiral where only they know how it could stop, without use of UI.

If their replies can convince me that it leads to 3NT, then they keep the score but still get a penalty. Or if they lead clearly to any other contract then they that is what I assign. If (more likely) they don't know what would happen or so claim, then I think 40% 60% is in order: trying to reconstruct the auction with two parallel groups of peers sounds unrealistic, although amusing.

[jillybean]

I bow to those upthread with vastly more knowledge and experience. I am looking at the hands, all roads lead to 3nt but this pair should not be permitted to get there.
Adjusted score to add to the penalties.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2026-February-07, 07:56, said:

I am looking at the hands, all roads lead to 3nt but this pair should not be permitted to get there.
Adjusted score to add to the penalties.

Exactly: the real auction is the one that would have occurred on BBO, not what happened f2f. I think it is permitted to change your vote

There is (or was for some of our Directors) a side issue of whether Director can legitimately investigate a possible infraction that West failed to point out precisely, even if there is a clear smell of cordite at the table. And the fact that 16B only mentions 12C1 in the context of B3 not B1 might give them extra fuel. FWIW I don't buy it, 81C3 is clear about Director's powers and duty and I don't believe the clumsy writing of 16B is intentional or really open to interpretation (otherwise the Commentary and other discussions would have mentioned it).

[pescetom]

To all, particularly moderator: does this post still have a poll?
I created it and saw the first few votes, but now it seems to have disappeared

[jillybean]

Ah, I wasn't imagining it. It was there, I didn't vote, when I went back to vote, it has gone.
It could be a new disappearing poll option, vote immediately before reading comments or lose the option.

IMO this thread highlights the sad state of the game, globally.
The important things in life; climate, democracy and Duplicate Bridge have all gone down the drain.

[mycroft]

I did assume that "club game" was FtF, without screens, partner alerts. If there were screens, and you couldn't hear North's explanation (because it was written, like it should be?) then South can guess right, of course. Same with BBO/self-Alert.

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2026-February-07, 06:13, said:

I presented this same problem to our regional directors and everyone shrugged it off as a normal result of the normal contract, the convention mishap did not influence the lead or defence and the lead makes no difference anyway.

mycroft, repeated ad nauseam said:

Without screens, *every* MI case is a UI case.

They are absolutely right - the MI wasn't a problem (and frankly, determining the correct information is an interesting challenge for the director - thankfully it doesn't matter). The UI *definitely* is a problem; and East should be saying (if the Director doesn't) "who bids 2♦, then 3NT to show 18-19 opposite a potential zero count? Without the knowledge that 2NT will not be interpreted correctly, I mean."

But people get locked into "they didn't give the right agreement". Directors get locked into that too. Hence my repeated quote whenever this comes around on the guitar (with 4-part harmony and feeling). And too many get locked into "3NT is a normal contract, everyone will get there" - but not this pair, because they're not on the same page, unless one of them punts it *because he knows they're not on the same page*. Pairs miss "normal contracts" on system misunderstandings/forgets all the time.

[mycroft]

Sorry for post-spamming...

pescetom, on 2026-February-07, 09:16, said:

There is (or was for some of our Directors) a side issue of whether Director can legitimately investigate a possible infraction that West failed to point out precisely, even if there is a clear smell of cordite at the table. And the fact that 16B only mentions 12C1 in the context of B3 not B1 might give them extra fuel. FWIW I don't buy it, 81C3 is clear about Director's powers and duty and I don't believe the clumsy writing of 16B is intentional or really open to interpretation (otherwise the Commentary and other discussions would have mentioned it).

"Director, [this happened] and something looks weird." If the NOS can't point out a specific infraction, N-S get away with blatant use of UI? Does it matter if the NOS can't state the potential infraction because they have no idea what UI is, or because they're a novice who has never read the law book, or they only know about "she hesitated and he bid!", or because they're so fixated on the misinformation that they don't think about how South sees it?

I can not imagine, especially in the world we are in where there is no requirement to know the Laws beyond "follow suit, play and bid in turn, don't make insufficient bids, claim clearly", that we experts in the Law are expected only to investigate what the players mention. I, too, read 81C3 the same way - "by any manner" seems to be clear. Whether or not the player understands the issue and hits 16B2 or 3, a "may not" 16B1a infraction may have occurred and the director knows it. And they're to ignore that?

I am disappoint[sic] when directors expect the player to do the thinking. I am reminded of the (local) director in Dallas who I called to the table after

---

when declarer announced (before the opening lead) that 2♥ was both majors (he was 4=5 and playing with his wife), who asked me to call him back at the end of the play - and when I did, asked me "so what's the problem?" If this West were in my seat, he wouldn't have known to say (as I did) "when you say 'pick a major' and partner picks one, why would you rebid hearts - unless your partner told you she thinks you have 2 more spades than you actually have?" And the director wouldn't protect this West from just as clear use of UI as OP, because he couldn't state the actual problem. I have to admit I expected when I called the director back, *he* would have told us my answer to his "so?" question before I even got a chance to say anything.

[mycroft]

and more...

I can absolutely see the auction to 3♠. I can't North passing 3♠ with even that 8 opposite a strong Multi, nor the auction ending in 3NT (North might try it with no fit and Qxxxx in partner's stiff, but South will bid 4♠). I do think they'll be able to get off the bus in 4♠, though, unless North's range for the "three suited hand" type is really big - a misfitting 8 isn't going to go for slam, and she must be thinking "we're off the rails now, aren't we?" by then. A quick look at the hand with DD assistance seems like the trump spots are such that South is going to survive in 4♠, so (again, quick look, more analysis would happen if I was consulted in the actual ruling) +420 seems reasonable. Maybe 80% of +420 and 20% of -50 ("maybe they couldn't hit the brakes in 4"), but my gut feel if this was polled would be North saying "WTH is 4♠ after I said I don't really have hearts?" (Standard "I have never played/against a Strong Multi in my life" caveat here, of course) I hope this is MPs where the difference between 430 and 420 is enough to matter.

I would definitely be asking South about 3NT, and why not 2NT. If I got any inkling it was more intentional than "panic", or if South Really Should Know Better, or if South is one of the "they didn't use the exact words, so how would I understand?" people, this is PP territory. Maybe "look, I wasn't born yesterday, and while it is *just possible* that you didn't do this knowingly to avoid a misunderstanding, now you do know, so you won't do it again, will you?", maybe "this will make up for all the times you did this before and didn't get a director call. The next one will be much bigger."

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2026-February-06, 16:19, said:

I would like to start issuing penalties for players who explain bids as 'convention name' and for pairs who play complex agreements, have forgets and take advantage of UI.
Score stands, East West weren't damaged but North South shouldn't be playing sanctioned games and only receive a slap on the hand for these infractions.

I would have no problem with that, though a lot of people would. Penalties are anathema to too many bridge players.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2026-February-07, 22:01, said:

I would have no problem with that, though a lot of people would. Penalties are anathema to too many bridge players.

Yes, so we watch the game slowly rotting away from neglect. C'est la vie

[pescetom]

Love it or hate it, but Italians tend to consider being "furbo" (hard to translate, "sly" is an injustice: maybe "deviously smart") as a necessary and positive trait
I think 3NT goes beyond authorized panic and is almost certainly furbizia. Oddly enough, this is the second time in a year I have encountered it. Perhaps even more, because as you say it's so easy to get locked into fixed schemes like "3NT is the inevitable contract here" or "a jump to 3NT is conclusive and it's no surprise that partner passed". As I commented to someone offline, this reminds me of Sherlock Holmes and the dog that did not bark. A misunderstanding that leads to the right contract is equally surprising, if you are not locked in.