[blml] MI and Logical Alternatives

[Wayne Burrows]

>From the NOT News at the Canberra Summer Festival of Bridge.

#1 NWT Rd 1, Bd 3; 12 tricks, NS –1370
        AQ97
        7543
        3
        9873
KJ            2
AQJ2        K986
K9852      AQJT76
Q5           AK
        T86543
        T
        4
        JT642
Dealer S, Vul EW
S   W   N   E
P   1D  P   2D
P   2H  P   3S
P   4D  P   4NT
P   5H  P   6D
P   P    P

There were no alerts. South had no possibility of describing the 6-5
as all 2-suited options were constructive. South asserted that she
would have bid 4S over 2D had she been aware that the opponents were
using "inverted minors".
Director rule score stands and NS appealed.
The AC agreed that this particular South may have bid 4S but
determined that it was not an action that would be given serious
consideration by a significant proportion of experienced players in
the field.
------------------------------------------

It seems to me that the AC is confusing MI with Logical Alternatives.
The fact or opinion that other players would not bid 4S would seem to
me to be irrelevant in determining whether this particular South was
damaged by a failure to alert the inverted minor raise.

To once the AC agree that South may have bid 4S then they must come to
the conclusion that the failure to alert has caused damage.

Wayne