[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♦-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.

[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 alone or insane.
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.