[blml] MI and Logical Alternatives

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alain Gottcheiner" <agot at ulb.ac.be>
To: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>; "blml" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] MI and Logical Alternatives


At 15:39 5/04/2007 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote:
> >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".


Only 4S?  john

snip

>I'll ask my regular partner (a stark raving preemptor) whether he considers 
>4S.

Best regards

   Alain



_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml