[Bbradley62]

---

Online pairs tournament. No alerts or explanations. Making 6. Any damage or adjustments?

[barmar]

I think the 3♠ bid should have clued you in to what was going on, and you could have clicked on the 2♦ bid to ask for an explanation.

There should be a PP against NS for the failure to alert, but I don't think BBO has a way to assess them.

[Bbradley62]

Is it E/W's responsibility to "get clued in"? What if they don't know that there is such a thing as multi-2D?

[barmar]

Something clearly strange is going on when the player with a presumed weak 2♦ makes a free bid of 3♠. Even if he's never heard of multi, he should be asking questions.

The best contract looks like 3NT, but even with correct explanations I'm not sure how you're going to get there.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2011-January-29, 16:02, said:

Something clearly strange is going on when the player with a presumed weak 2♦ makes a free bid of 3♠. Even if he's never heard of multi, he should be asking questions.

The best contract looks like 3NT, but even with correct explanations I'm not sure how you're going to get there.

Why would you presume that the meaning of the 2♦ bid was a weak two in diamonds? There are other non alertable meanings for a 2♦ bid that leave the auction plausible until North's pass (e.g. an intermediate two or strong two in diamonds).

I readily admit that I would have asked questions, but I am pretty inquisitive.

Rik

[mycroft]

Well, Rik, it depends on jurisdiction - in the ACBL, at least (so for ACBL BBO tourneys as well), the *only* unAlertable meaning for 2D is "weak 2 in diamonds" - intermediate or strong natural are also Alerted. Yes, it drives me nuts when good hands ask about an unAlerted 2D - especially if they then pass.

I notice that 2H was *also* not alerted. That's also bad, but again, it might be cross-jurisdiction rules (maybe where they play, Multi and followups are not Alertable; I don't know where, but that seems to be the most reasonable reason why *both* calls weren't Alerted).

I will admit that with KQTxx - AJTxxxx x, playing EHAA, I'd bid like south, naturally. But yeah. Experienced players - experienced with things other than the ACBL - should twig to something being odd. Not-so-experienced players, or players who have only played ACBL bridge, I'll cut some slack on.

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2011-January-29, 16:02, said:

The best contract looks like 3NT, but even with correct explanations I'm not sure how you're going to get there.

3N is best, being unbreakable. 4H is more fragile, but will be made some reasonable proportion of the time. But likewise I can't see W intervening with 2H or punting 4H over South's 3S call even given correct explanations. 5C is such a terrible contract, the percentage one might give to it being bid and made is tiny, despite the appalling defence that must actually have occurred against 4C. All in all, I think 4C+2 is better than the best result NS can reasonably hope for given the correct explanations, and I conclude no damage.

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on 2011-February-01, 03:24, said:

3N is best, being unbreakable. 4H is more fragile, but will be made some reasonable proportion of the time. But likewise I can't see W intervening with 2H or punting 4H over South's 3S call even given correct explanations. 5C is such a terrible contract, the percentage one might give to it being bid and made is tiny, despite the appalling defence that must actually have occurred against 4C. All in all, I think 4C+2 is better than the best result NS can reasonably hope for given the correct explanations, and I conclude no damage.

Defence doesn't have to be totally misere to allow 4♣+2, 10♥ lead, taken with the A and ♦ towards dummy's weakness is not totally supid.

Agree 4♣+2 is probably as good as they're going to get, sometimes preemption works, and it leaves no means for E to discover his partner's major suit stops or heart suit.