[shevek]

1♣ - (2♦) - 2♠ - (no)
2NT - (no) - 3NT

1♣ was alerted, could have been 2+.

North led his 6-card heart suit against 3NT.
At the end, he said "I assumed multis also applied against a short club"

South said "Not in my book. Nobody I know plays that way"
Etc, etc

Do EW get anything?

[aguahombre]

They get the table result.

[Cascade]

I think we need to know more about north and south.

The says to assume misinformation in the absence of evidence to the contrary. While south's statements are evidence they are not sufficient in my opinion. It maybe possible there is some common ground where some group of players play a multi defense over an artificial 1♣. In which case north south may need to be more convincing that they had not had explicitly or implicitly made such an agreement.

[Bbradley62]

North says "I assumed" and South has stated that he doesn't play "that way" with anyone. Do you need a notarized affidavit from each of them confirming that they did not discuss the subject with each other?

[Cascade]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-16, 23:38, said:

North says "I assumed" and South has stated that he doesn't play "that way" with anyone. Do you need a notarized affidavit from each of them confirming that they did not discuss the subject with each other?

No.

I would just like to know how experienced they are as partners or with common partners.

I might accept this from some pick up partners but not from a pair that have some history of playing together. How much I do not know. Hence I would like to know more about them.

[blackshoe]

Aqua is right. There is no evidence there was an infraction here, and no evidence of damage. I'm not going snipe hunting, and neither should anyone else.

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2012-December-16, 23:29, said:

I think we need to know more about north and south. The law says to assume misinformation in the absence of evidence to the contrary. While south's statements are evidence they are not sufficient in my opinion. It maybe possible there is some common ground where some group of players play a multi defense over an artificial 1♣. In which case north south may need to be more convincing that they had not had explicitly or implicitly made such an agreement.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-16, 23:55, said:

Aqua is right. There is no evidence there was an infraction here, and no evidence of damage. I'm not going snipe hunting, and neither should anyone else.

Agree with Cascade. A distrustful director might ask North if the partnership had used "Multi" in similar contexts before. Unless overly concerned about giving offence, a diligent sniper might even peruse the North-South convention-cards and system-notes. For example, if defenders are good players in an experienced partnership but have no card or notes, an assiduous director might seriously consider the possibility of an MI ruling. A pernickety director might also ask about the play (in the light of the bidding). For example, in the play, does South appear to field North's "psych/misbid". And does North seem to use UI from South's failure to alert.

[Cyberyeti]

shevek, on 2012-December-16, 20:03, said:

1♣ - (2♦) - 2♠ - (no)
2NT - (no) - 3NT

1♣ was alerted, could have been 2+.

North led his 6-card heart suit against 3NT.
At the end, he said "I assumed multis also applied against a short club"

South said "Not in my book. Nobody I know plays that way"
Etc, etc

Do EW get anything?

Only if N looked uncomfortable when 2♦ wasn't alerted, the heart led looks like xx(x) and S returns one when a diamond switch looks obvious if partner has diamonds.

Basically on the info given here there is no infraction, but I wouldn't rule it out without asking more questions.

[Sjoerds]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-16, 23:55, said:

Aqua is right. There is no evidence there was an infraction here...

One last time: unless in Dutch regulations

[gordontd]

Sjoerds, on 2012-December-17, 16:58, said:

One last time: unless in Dutch regulations

The original post is from Australia.