[blml] MI and Logical Alternatives

[Tim West-Meads]

Grattan wrote:

> +=+ I would say the AC has indicated that it does not believe
> South and has quoted wider probabilities of action by peer
> players as the basis for ts judgement.

If the AC did not believe South's assertion with regard to the 4S bid 
they could have ruled that they did not believe the assertion (and 
justified their ruling based on consultation with peers as necessary).

They didn't do that - they agreed that South may have bid 4S (ie they 
agree there was some percentage chance that 4S would have been bid).

As such they should be considering damage under L12c2/L12c3 (someone 
remind me what is enabled down under).  A L12c2 ruling of "no damage - 
because we believe the chances of a) 4S being bid, b) North sacrificing 
in 6S, c) EW being unable to right-side 6N are too small to consider" 
would be reasonable IMO.

Tim