[blml] MI and Logical Alternatives

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Wayne Burrows" <wjburrows at gmail.com>
> 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.

Indeed.  In dealing with a MI infraction, the TD's or AC's job is to 
determine what would have happened _at this table_ if the infraction had 
not occurred.  That is difficult and subjective and no doubt will often 
require a probabalistic estimate, but L12C2 tells us how to deal with 
that.  If L12C3 is enabled, each possible result can be given whatever 
weight seems appropriate.

One complication in the actual case is that 3S seems obvious to me 
regardless of what 2D meant.  Were EW playing a strong club system, 
making 1D limited?  That would justify South's actual pass.  Short of 
that, I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical about South's contention that he 
would have bid over an alerted 2D.  But my opinion doesn't count; the AC 
needs to question the player and come to a conclusion.