[blml] Fwd: Re: MI and Logical Alternatives

[Alain Gottcheiner]

>At 15:39 5/04/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote:
>>
>>
>>#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.
>>-
>
>AG : I'll ask my regular partner (a stark raving preemptor) whether he 
>considers 4S.

AG : here is his answer :

GP : I would surely consider pass and 3S. 2S and two-suited bids would be 
constructive in my mind, hence excluded. Given suit quality, you'll have to 
find somebody more raving than me to bid 4S.
Now, perhaps you could toy with semantics, and argue that my mentioning 
that option means I'm considering it somehow ...

AG : I'd rather say "pragmatics". But indeed, 4S looks like a a possible 
bid. Note that, after 3S too, 6S  could be the final contract.

Best regards

     Alain