[jfnrl]

---

jurisdiction FFB / screens / rank 500 - 5000 / 100,000
2♦ multi
3♠alerted and explained "passe ou corrige" (= pass or correct)

NS claim that they miss their game in 4S because of the lack of information.
Inn their view, the exlanation should be :
"L'enchère montre exactement 3 cartes à pique et au moins quatre cartes à cœur. Mon partenaire passera avec 6 cartes à pique faible et dira 4C s'il a les cœurs."
The bid shows 3 spades exacty and 4 hearts at least. Opener will pass with 6 spades weak and bid 4H with 6 hearts weak.

how do you rule ?

[Trinidad]

Do NS have any experience in defending against a Multi 2♦?

I think it is highly unlikely that you will find someone who doesn't understand the explanation "pass or correct" in a European tournament that is played with screens. I would expect the written note to say "P/C" and nothing more, since "everybody" will understand it and writing "Pass or correct" takes more time than needed.

And if NS didn't understand "Pass or correct", they could have asked for clarification.

Furthermore, I suspect that the proposed correct explanation is wrong. Yes, usually West will have exactly 3 spades and 4 or more hearts, but in reality 3♠ means: I want to play 3♠ if you have spades, 4♥ (or more) if you have hearts. So, West could, e.g. also have a 25(15) hand, and bid 3♠ knowing that the opponents have a fit in a minor.

Rik

[WrecksVee]

IF the as described meaning is correct than that info and not "pass or correct" should have been explained. The agreement if exacting enough to specify exactly 3♠and 4+♥ should have been stated.

[barmar]

What is the complaint? That they didn't understand the explanation, or that the explanation didn't adequately describe the type of hand that West would make it on?

In either case, I don't think they have a case at this level of competition. "Pass/correct" is a common type of bid, advanced players should be well familiar with them; complaining that they don't understand it would be like saying they don't understand what "invitational" means.

And the types of hands that would jump to 2♠ is a simple, logical inference. The explanation might be inadequate against inexperienced players, but it can be considered general bridge knowledge among advanced and expert players.

[wank]

you can only go so far in pandering to opponents' inability to understand basic bridge concepts. giving north/south anything here would be well over the line.

[blackshoe]

Unless NS can produce evidence that EW's agreement is that specific (West's hand is not evidence of that specificity) I would rule no MI, and no score adjustment.

[pran]

"Pass or correct" is definitely not a sufficient explanation of the 3♠ bid in the auction:
2♦ [multi] - pass - 3♠

Why?
1: The explanation should make it clear for opponents that 3♠ is forcing to game in hearts if opener has a weak heart hand and is just for play if opener has a weak spades hand (in both cases regardless of strength).

2: The explanation should clarify the difference if the bid had been 2♠ instead of 3♠. (My Guess is that 2♠ will be invitation to game in hearts?)

Opponents are not required to figure out for themselves that responder has little or no interest in the spade suit and in fact probably denies more than two cards in that suit. (2NT is a convenient bid when responder is interested in either suit).

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-May-19, 11:59, said:

"Pass or correct" is definitely not a sufficient explanation of the 3♠ bid in the auction:
2♦ [multi] - pass - 3♠

Why?
1: The explanation should make it clear for opponents that 3♠ is forcing to game in hearts if opener has a weak heart hand and is just for play if opener has a weak spades hand (in both cases regardless of strength).

2: The explanation should clarify the difference if the bid had been 2♠ instead of 3♠. (My Guess is that 2♠ will be invitation to game in hearts?)

Opponents are not required to figure out for themselves that responder has little or no interest in the spade suit and in fact probably denies more than two cards in that suit. (2NT is a convenient bid when responder is interested in either suit).

1. That a "pass or correct" 3♠ is forcing to game if opener has hearts is a matter "generally known to bridge players" since it follows from the fact that a correction will be to four hearts, which is game. As such a matter, explicit disclosure is not required. See Law 40B6{a}.

2. If responder could have bid a "pass or correct" 2♠ then yes, the meaning of that bid should be part of the disclosure.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-May-19, 11:59, said:

"Pass or correct" is definitely not a sufficient explanation of the 3♠ bid in the auction:
2♦ [multi] - pass - 3♠

Why?
1: The explanation should make it clear for opponents that 3♠ is forcing to game in hearts if opener has a weak heart hand and is just for play if opener has a weak spades hand (in both cases regardless of strength).

"pass or correct" means opener is expected to pass if that is his suit.

If the bid were actually invitational, so that opener was expected to bid 4♠ with a max+spades, then "pass or correct" would be inadequate disclosure -- it's actually "pass, correct, or raise".

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-May-19, 12:39, said:

"pass or correct" means opener is expected to pass if that is his suit.

If the bid were actually invitational, so that opener was expected to bid 4♠ with a max+spades, then "pass or correct" would be inadequate disclosure -- it's actually "pass, correct, or raise".

What Sven described is "pass or correct".

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-19, 12:42, said:

What Sven described is "pass or correct".

Then why did he say that it's not adequate disclosure? It seems like he has a different understanding, based on exactly the points you made in your response.

[blackshoe]

Sven's different understanding has nothing to do with a possible raise in spades - he thinks that the fact that if opener has hearts he will correct to game requires explicit disclosure. At least, that's how I read him. IMO, though, the fact that responder has a hand that wants to be, or at least doesn't mind being, in game if opener has hearts is implicit in "knowledge generally available to bridge players" and so does not require explicit disclosure.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-19, 13:01, said:

Sven's different understanding has nothing to do with a possible raise in spades - he thinks that the fact that if opener has hearts he will correct to game requires explicit disclosure. At least, that's how I read him. IMO, though, the fact that responder has a hand that wants to be, or at least doesn't mind being, in game if opener has hearts is implicit in "knowledge generally available to bridge players" and so does not require explicit disclosure.

The important detail which is undisclosed with a "pass or correct" explanation is that the bid in spades denies interest in spades.
This effect cannot legally be hidden behind Law 40B6a: [...]he need not disclose inferences drawn from [...] experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2014-May-19, 14:29, said:

The important detail which is undisclosed with a "pass or correct" explanation is that the bid in spades denies interest in spades.
This effect cannot legally be hidden behind Law 40B6a: [...]he need not disclose inferences drawn from [...] experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Does it? For everyone? Or is that just the way you play it?

You know, Sven, it's really not nice of you to imply I'm — or someone else who makes this argument is — trying to hide something.

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2014-May-19, 14:29, said:

The important detail which is undisclosed with a "pass or correct" explanation is that the bid in spades denies interest in spades.
This effect cannot legally be hidden behind Law 40B6a: [...]he need not disclose inferences drawn from [...] experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

While this is true when the P/C is at minimum level (and would be true of a 2♠ bid here), a jump to 3♠ will almost always be carrying 3 spades by GBK.

[pran]

I had understood the counter-arguments better if they had been based on (alleged) GBK:

The responder forces to game opposite a weak 2 in hearts but is (more than?) satisfied playing in 3 opposite a weak 2 in spades. With either alternative he doesn't care whether opener has a minimum or a maximum strength hand. What possible hand types does that leave for responder?

The meaning of most natural calls can be figured out by similar (GBK) logic, but that doesn't imply that such calls need not be (fully) explained.

Law 40B6 allows the explainer to omit features that should be instantly clear to opponents, but it certainly does not expect opponents to figure out the meaning of any call by independent analysis.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-19, 15:05, said:

Does it? For everyone? Or is that just the way you play it?

You know, Sven, it's really not nice of you to imply I'm — or someone else who makes this argument is — trying to hide something.

Sure I play "multi" but a jump response to 3♠ doesn't exist in "my" system.

My comment was based on GBK.

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2014-May-20, 01:25, said:

I had understood the counter-arguments better if they had been based on (alleged) GBK:

The responder forces to game opposite a weak 2 in hearts but is (more than?) satisfied playing in 3 opposite a weak 2 in spades. With either alternative he doesn't care whether opener has a minimum or a maximum strength hand. What possible hand types does that leave for responder?

The meaning of most natural calls can be figured out by similar (GBK) logic, but that doesn't imply that such calls need not be (fully) explained.

Law 40B6 allows the explainer to omit features that should be instantly clear to opponents, but it certainly does not expect opponents to figure out the meaning of any call by independent analysis.

3♠ is not usually "forcing to game", it's taking a sacrifice in 3♠/4♥ before the opps can get any suits in, assuming partner has a 6 card suit, it will usually thus be 3♠/4+♥ by LTT. If it's always weak, it should probably be explained as such, particularly in places where the multi is not common, but in the UK where it is common, this is just bridge.

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-May-20, 02:57, said:

3♠ is not usually "forcing to game", it's taking a sacrifice in 3♠/4♥ before the opps can get any suits in, assuming partner has a 6 card suit, it will usually thus be 3♠/4+♥ by LTT. If it's always weak, it should probably be explained as such, particularly in places where the multi is not common, but in the UK where it is common, this is just bridge.

With this description "pass or correct" is not only incomplete, it is directly wrong.

A correct description must include "preemptive" (or similar words).

[campboy]

How, exactly, is "pass or correct" wrong? Partner is asked to pass (if he has spades) or correct (if he doesn't).

Consequently, it must be pre-emptive. Partner, if he has spades, is being told to pass, not being invited to bid on. So it is a pre-emptive raise, not a constructive one. If partner could bid 4♠ then "pass or correct" would be MI.