[Cyberyeti]

This happened in a friendly club game, no director call, but what should happen.

You open a multi (weak only), partner alerts.

LHO pulls the double card out of the box, and just before putting it on the table asks "is that weak". Partner says "weak with hearts or spades". LHO returns the double to the box.

I believe I should call the director at this point and the double being removed from the box with intent it's played.

Anyway, after a short think, he doubles anyway. His partner now has UI that his partner would double a weak 2♦ AND a multi.

We played on, the auction proceeded P-P-P for +280 and all the matchpoints so there was no damage, but I'm not sure how the partner of the doubler should interpret the UI he has, what is suggested ? some sort of balanced hand out of range for 2N ?

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-25, 04:01, said:

We played on, the auction proceeded P-P-P for +280 and all the matchpoints so there was no damage, but I'm not sure how the partner of the doubler should interpret the UI he has, what is suggested ? some sort of balanced hand out of range for 2N ?

The partner of the doubler may not interpret and use the UI .(Law16)

I’m going to leave the question on what it does suggest to those with experience playing Multi.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-25, 04:01, said:

I'm not sure how the partner of the doubler should interpret the UI he has, what is suggested ? some sort of balanced hand out of range for 2N ?

It depends upon their agreements about double in the two different scenarios. I would expect a double of weak diamonds to be takeout and a double of multi to show diamonds, although meanings more specific to multi are reasonable (I play it as a takeout of weak spades). I can't see how an NT hand could meet the bill: maybe a strong single suiter in a major?

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2024-August-25, 06:36, said:

It depends upon their agreements about double in the two different scenarios. I would expect a double of weak diamonds to be takeout and a double of multi to show diamonds, although meanings more specific to multi are reasonable (I play it as a takeout of weak spades). I can't see how an NT hand could meet the bill: maybe a strong single suiter in a major?

Almost nobody plays double of multi showing diamonds, weak no trump type or very strong is common, also with 2N 15-17 ish in both cases, a balanced 18-20 is in the frame for the double.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-August-25, 04:35, said:

I’m going to leave the question on what it does suggest to those with experience playing Multi.

It should be more relevant to have experience of playing against Multi. But most people have no idea how to do that unless they have experience playing it themselves, so ultimately you're right.

(And no, I don't play it, except in interference over 1NT, and yes I pay out to it quite often. I think the claims that it is easy to defend against are ill founded and often in bad faith).

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-25, 06:40, said:

Almost nobody plays double of multi showing diamonds, weak no trump type or very strong is common, also with 2N 15-17 ish in both cases, a balanced 18-20 is in the frame for the double.

Perhaps a regional thing, many low level pairs play the direct seat double of an artificial 2D as diamonds over here. Once it is more specific to Multi then lots of possibilities make sense, including a takeout of a specific major, or a balanced hand weaker than 2NT (which is more like 16-18 than 15-17).

[sanst]

I should like to know what their defence is against a weak diamond opening AND what they play against a multi. A double over a weak two generaly is take out, against a multi it shows a hand with opening values but no long suit or a strong hand. But there are more defences, like the MeckWell defence, the Dutch SF defence and more. A specific aspect of the defence against a multi opening is, that the LHO of the opener gets a second change. A direct double conveys some other information than a double at the second turn you get.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-August-25, 07:16, said:

I should like to know what their defence is against a weak diamond opening AND what they play against a multi. A double over a weak two generaly is take out, against a multi it shows a hand with opening values but no long suit or a strong hand. But there are more defences, like the MeckWell defence, the Dutch SF defence and more. A specific aspect of the defence against a multi opening is, that the LHO of the opener gets a second change. A direct double conveys some other information than a double at the second turn you get.

LHO of the multier DOESN'T get a second go necessarily over a weak only multi, the reason to play weak only is that partner can pass a lot more often, and might in this case

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-25, 08:21, said:

LHO of the multier DOESN'T get a second go necessarily over a weak only multi, the reason to play weak only is that partner can pass a lot more often, and might in this case

Which is one of the reasons why playing the direct double as diamonds is not that bad... it won't always be the RHO who can punish diamonds.

[mycroft]

Note: I'm not an EBU director, and all I know about the rules is what I've read.

• Weak 2♦ is Announced "Weak" in the EBU, not Alerted (BB 4F1). Therefore that question shouldn't say anything about diamonds, just that the 2♦ call is a weak bid rather than, say, Precision 2♦ or Flannery. But I bet it didn't. (*)
  
• A call is made in the EBU when the call clears the box (WB 8.25.3), so it was made before the query, so it was made with "enough" information for the player. What they thought about asking *after* the call was made is both extraneous to the call (wouldn't be 25A, clearly thought took place, could be 32B1a if he finds out it wasn't what they told them by the Alert/lack of Announcement, but he can't ask now, it's not his turn. His partner could...)
  
• So this is a question asked at an incorrect time (20F1), and therefore UI to partner. I'll take the bait and yell at OP, you're 100% right the director should have been called. If for no other reason than I'd want the TD watching the auction and opener's RHO's action, given it is clear the double was made based on the (must be) wrong assumption of the meaning of the opener.
  
• I 100% would be calling the director when he put it back. I'd do that in ACBL-land, too, where our "call[s are] made" when it is on or near the table - just because of the UI. Here, I'm condoning 25B1 (well, technically, 32C, but that leads to 25B1), which at least partly makes whatever happens later partly my fault.
  
• Now, if this is a "match played privately", then the pattern is different, but the joy of the EBU is that a ruling as a matter of Law is in fact a phone call away. When the Law is applied, however, or not, as the case may be, then further rulings also have a pattern equivalent to "call the director".
  
• How would I read this as offender's partner? Well, that depends on my Multi defence - I'm sure in the EBU I have one? I have to bid as if all the previous didn't happen and I just got "Alert" "Please?" "Weak with hearts or spades" "Double".
  
• Having said that, what could a double without asking about the Alert mean, though? I guess it depends on what Alertable 2♦ calls are common. I'm guessing there it would be Multi, mini-Roman, Precision (but they'd know your basic system, so), or [see footnote, again] "natural, preemptive". I would think that all of those, a "double of an artificial call shows the suit" diamonds would make sense. But then again, I'd expect to have a Multi defence that's more thorough than "double is Diamonds", so...? I'd love to know what the UK folks would think about this.
  
• What does the UI that actually happened mean? Well, now we know what the doubler thought - that "like most people"[footnote, again, but seriously?] this pair doesn't know how to Announce, but I guess I better check. Oh, they do? Hmm. Frankly, I'd think that the Multi double "doesn't fit" and he has a reasonable takeout of diamonds. But if the Multi double is "weak NT or strong hand" like Dixon, it could still be a reasonable takeout of diamonds, and happy to defend the real suit. Wouldn't it be nice if the TD was there who might have a better guess?
  
• Oh, it turns out partner has a "let's try 2♦x" pass (which lends credence to the "takeout of diamonds" kind of Multi double). I'll go with that. Oh, it makes 3? Even better. But if it didn't - especially if they were booked for 100 in 3NT or 2 or 500 in whatever suit they end up in doubled, I might be regretting my previous actions, even if I do call the director after. Especially when LHO then swears that "no, I'd put my hand on the double, but I asked before I pulled it out" and RHO agrees. Even if the TD believes me and not them, it still looks like "doubleshot" (or, at least, "call after we see all the cards and know the best result").(**)
  
• On that note, we only have the OP's side of the story, and it could be that the opponents will insist that the call *didn't clear* the box. And they might even be right (but tradition here says that we assume the facts in OP as correct when first giving answers. And I note that out of all the people I'd be suspicious of "seeing what they wanted to see" (i.e. the "call was on the table" vs "call didn't clear the box" = "call actually was still in vertical line of box" - or maybe "call cleared the P/X/XX section but was still below 1♣"), I'd put OP near the bottom. OTOH, I'd put me near the bottom, too, and I know for a fact that as a player, I still "see what is best for me" to a certain extent).

As the (very remote) TD, I'd be thinking that Laws 10B and 11A are my friends here. What, cynical, me?

(*) Question: how good are people at doing this correctly, especially with 2♦? As everybody knows, this is one of my bugbears in the ACBL - there is exactly one meaning for 2♦ that isn't Alertable. 40% of players play something Alertable, and about 35% of them Alert it. So it's likely if you ask, you'll get an "oh, sorry, Flannery" - so they ask. The majority of the time that it's "preemptive, of course, otherwise I'd have Alerted it" there's an added benefit that when they pass, they've shown about 13 balanced. In the EBU, there are *zero* non-Alertable or Announceable meanings for 2♦, so fine - but how many Alert when they should Announce? Is this a question people "have to ask" because they're "frequently misled"?
(**) I'm sure that many players know their opponents, and are "sure" that the facts will be agreed when there is a problem later without actually verbally agreeing them now - after all, we all saw it, right? I'm sure we all know that some players - just don't; and some really didn't notice; and some don't actually know that there is a problem (and someone assuming an Alerted 2 bid is natural when natural 2-suit openers are Announced probably are in this last category). Even in the nice "we all know" world, it's still better to get positive agreement at the time, or the TD if there isn't.

[mycroft]

In a note to "multi is easy to defend", well, of course it isn't, a preemptive bid without a known suit is never easy. But EBU boring is Dixon which, while not "easy", isn't any harder than lebensohl (and certainly much easier than either of the two "ACBL approved" defences).

It's probably not as effective as more complicated defences, either - but in a world where it comes up as often as an artificial defence to 1NT openers, I would certainly take "90% effective defence I know my partner will be on the same page as" over "95% effective defence we both have to read carefully and hope we don't miss anything."

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-August-25, 12:00, said:

In a note to "multi is easy to defend", well, of course it isn't, a preemptive bid without a known suit is never easy. But EBU boring is Dixon which, while not "easy", isn't any harder than lebensohl (and certainly much easier than either of the two "ACBL approved" defences).

It's probably not as effective as more complicated defences, either - but in a world where it comes up as often as an artificial defence to 1NT openers, I would certainly take "90% effective defence I know my partner will be on the same page as" over "95% effective defence we both have to read carefully and hope we don't miss anything."

Thanks for that, sheds light on cyberyeti's comments.
To be brutally honest if by 100% you mean traditional defence against a known weak
major then I would rate this Dixon more like 40% than 90%, but then ACBL1 or my own defence are not much better and it takes a lot of work to reach even 70%.
Multi is a pig to defend, and many pairs who face it day to day still leave generous helpings of MP on the slate however little they realize or worry about it.

[Cyberyeti]

Dixon is very much out of fashion in the UK, it used to be really common

[mycroft]

Interesting. Sometime, I'd love to know what "the punters" play now. But I don't want to hijack this one.

[pescetom]

I remember E. Kokish commenting that he hoped his opponents would continue to play Multi against him (or words to that effect). I read his defence, and understood why: it was longer and far more complex than our notes on systems over 1NT at the time.
So it's probably not impossible to reach or exceed 100%, just beyond the average partnership.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2024-August-25, 15:20, said:

Multi is a pig to defend, and many pairs who face it day to day still leave generous helpings of MP on the slate however little they realize or worry about it.

That's why the Dutch union allow players to consult their notes about the defence against multi. But hardly anybody does that.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-August-25, 12:00, said:

In a note to "multi is easy to defend", well, of course it isn't, a preemptive bid without a known suit is never easy. But EBU boring is Dixon which, while not "easy", isn't any harder than lebensohl (and certainly much easier than either of the two "ACBL approved" defences).

It's probably not as effective as more complicated defences, either - but in a world where it comes up as often as an artificial defence to 1NT openers, I would certainly take "90% effective defence I know my partner will be on the same page as" over "95% effective defence we both have to read carefully and hope we don't miss anything."

Thanks for that, sheds light on cyberyeti's comments.
To be brutally honest I would rate it 45% efficient, but then ACBL1 or my own defence are little better and it takes a lot of work to go much higher.
Multi is a pig to defend, and many pairs who face it day to day still leave tons of MP on the slate however little they realize it.