[pescetom]

During a club tournament yesterday my LHO opens 2D, explained by RHO as Multicolor with either a weak major or a strong three-suited hand. After pass of my companion RHO responds 2S, which is explained by LHO as "Shows opening strength", when pressed further she adds "does not show Spades", when asked about any hearts inferences she replies with irritation "says nothing about hearts". I am a bit surprised and pass, and then even more surprised when she bids 3 Spades, which is immediately raised to 4 Spades by her partner. I lead and the dummy goes down, a normal weak six spades with 9 HCP. But declarer has AQx in spades as well as AQJxx in hearts and comfortably makes game with an overtrick.

The TD was none other than my RHO and I kept quiet: it's not as if they had stolen much, we had no real alternative and they had quite enough to bid to game with a more natural 2S - 4S sequence. Nevertheless I wasn't happy with their bidding or explanations and I wonder what would have happened had I called the director in a real competitive tournament.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2018-January-06, 15:28, said:

During a club tournament yesterday my LHO opens 2D, explained by RHO as Multicolor with either a weak major or a strong three-suited hand. After pass of my companion RHO responds 2S, which is explained by LHO as "Shows opening strength", when pressed further she adds "does not show Spades", when asked about any hearts inferences she replies with irritation "says nothing about hearts". I am a bit surprised and pass, and then even more surprised when she bids 3 Spades, which is immediately raised to 4 Spades by her partner. I lead and the dummy goes down, a normal weak six spades with 9 HCP. But declarer has AQx in spades as well as AQJxx in hearts and comfortably makes game with an overtrick.

The TD was none other than my RHO and I kept quiet: it's not as if they had stolen much, we had no real alternative and they had quite enough to bid to game with a more natural 2S - 4S sequence. Nevertheless I wasn't happy with their bidding or explanations and I wonder what would have happened had I called the director in a real competitive tournament.

There has been several variations of "multi" 2♦ opening bids and the initial explanation here can very well be correct (although apparently incomplete).
The "compulsory" response from a valueless partner is very often 2♥ which then simply asks opener to pass or correct as the case might be.
The answer 2♠ can very well show opening strength with no indication whatsoever about distribution and request opener to further describe her hand. (In most jurisdictions this 2♠ bid must be alerted!)

So the only "special" issue here so far appears to be opener's irritation and the lack of complete explanation.

Law 20F1 said:

During the auction and before the final pass any player may request, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

(My enhancement)

[steve2005]

If 2♠ shows an opening hand the rest of the auction isn't particularly unusual.
Yes 2♠ should be alerted.
Over 2♠ you would expect more than 3♥/3♠ to show a weak 2 and there is another bid that shows a minimum weak 2. So i would have asked what 3♠ means. They could be using all other bids to show 4441 but that would be a poor method.

Showing annoyance explaining a bid especially one that is artificial, not common and not alerted is very poor sportsmanship.

[pescetom]

steve2005, on 2018-January-06, 17:09, said:

If 2♠ shows an opening hand the rest of the auction isn't particularly unusual.

Indeed, but that's the rub, it's very hard to believe that the explanation offered describes the opponent's actual agreements.
Both opponents are very experienced (at least thirty years more than me) and were playing together only by chance, they only had minutes to make any agreements and I find it difficult to imagine that their discussion of Multicolor went beyond deciding which strong openings were included and which were not. The majority of players in the club still play Multicolor and there is relatively little variation in the traditional way they play it, in particular for the replies of 2 in a major which are both Pass or Correct, although 2S indicates some strength and probable game interest in hearts. This is why I was so surprised by the explanations offered to me. There is more variation in the use of 2NT and related replies and I can understand that RHO with strong hearts support might hesitate to bid 2NT rather than 2S.

One possible logical explanation is that RHO bid 2S without reflecting on the fact that he had probable game in spades too, and that LHO somehow gathered this was the situation and decided to rebid spades instead of passing. I prefer however to exclude this as it would imply that both opponents were aware that the explanation offered to me did not reflect their real agreement.

[hrothgar]

pescetom, on 2018-January-07, 07:57, said:

Indeed, but that's the rub, it's very hard to believe that the explanation offered describes the opponent's actual agreements.

Its at this point in time that your little tale passes out of the realm of "questions about bridge" and into the realm of "Are my opponents cheating"...

And regretfully, none of the folks reading this thread are likely to be particularly well suited to addressing this question.

None of us no anything about you, or the club you play in, or your opponents.
So, I really don't think that we're going to be able to provide you with the satisfaction that your looking for.

I will note the following:

I tend to look askance at a situation in which you

1. Ask a question to the forums
2. Get an answer that you don't like
3. Decide to throw in a bit of mud / disparaging information
4. Ask your question again

[barmar]

If they didn't have enough time to discuss their continuations over Multi in detail, when would they have had time to agree how to collude with it?

The bidding sounds consistent with the explanation to me. "Opening strength" presumably means at least opening strength, hence forcing for one round, so opener was obligated to show her long suit.

The irritation was probably because "If it had shown anything about hearts I would have said so." That doesn't make the question unreasonably, but it would explain her exasperation in having to explain something that she thought was obvious. A barrage of questions can be irritating, and sometimes the responder worries that such specific questions may be passing UI to the other opponent.

[pescetom]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-07, 08:09, said:

I tend to look askance at a situation in which you

1. Ask a question to the forums
2. Get an answer that you don't like
3. Decide to throw in a bit of mud / disparaging information
4. Ask your question again

It certainly wasn't my intention to throw in any mud, I was just trying to explain why I asked the question in the first place.
I do however concede that I was wrong to assume that these two opponents must have an agreeement different from the one explained to me, just because I am used to other club players playing differently.

Tonight I did what I should have done earlier, and asked my opponents what their actual agreement was. It turns out that it was pretty much as explained to me, one of them prefers this older version of Multicolor and the other agreed to play it. End of story and sorry if I took things off track here.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2018-January-07, 13:38, said:

If they didn't have enough time to discuss their continuations over Multi in detail, when would they have had time to agree how to collude with it?

The bidding sounds consistent with the explanation to me. "Opening strength" presumably means at least opening strength, hence forcing for one round, so opener was obligated to show her long suit.

The irritation was probably because "If it had shown anything about hearts I would have said so." That doesn't make the question unreasonably, but it would explain her exasperation in having to explain something that she thought was obvious. A barrage of questions can be irritating, and sometimes the responder worries that such specific questions may be passing UI to the other opponent.

I wouldn't try to excuse the opponent's manner or her reluctance to give a straight answer. It is rare that a 2♠ response to a Multi does not show good hearts.