[blml] AI = UI, and influence

[John R. Mayne]

-----Original Message-----
>From: Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>
>Sent: Aug 3, 2007 2:14 AM
>To: blml at rtflb.org
>Subject: [blml] AI = UI, and influence
>
>Dear blmlists,
>
>Here are two intricated cases from recent Belgian training sessions.
>Your advice will be heartily welcome.
>
>1.
>
>West
>1D	p	1S	p
>2S	p	3NT	p
>4NT
>
>Before bidding 4NT, West said "oops, I went wrong".
>This is UI, of course.
>There is also AI provided by the highly surprising 4NT bid.
>
>a) Do you judge UI to be equal to AI ?

No. AI is that *something* went wrong. UI is that something *before 4N* went wrong.

>b) Do you accept that the sequence go on ?

Sure. Is there some other option?

>c) Does it make any sense to ask some good players what their guess is 
>about what happened to poor West, in order to determine whether it could be 
>read by East ?

No. Passing 4N is possible, and indicated by the comment. These are very bad facts for E-W.

>
>For the record, West had mispulled 2S in lieu of 2NT, and E/W went on to a 
>mildly lucky 6NT (32 HCP total).

Roll back to 4N. 1/2 board PP in addition. No excuse for this at all.


>
>2. 	
>
>North and West are strong players, East is a client, South an intermediate 
>level player with long experience.
>
>N	E	S	W
>1C	p	1H	2H
>p	2S	3H	X
>3NT	p	p	X
>
>East alerted South's bid. 

I'm going to read "South" as "West."


Assume that cue-bids are NOT self-alerting (they 
>aren't in Belgium).
>a) which meaning of the cue would be non-alertable ? 

I don't know. 


(in direct position, 
>eg 1H 2H, it's the strong meaning)
>b) before passing, North enquired : "do you know what his second suit would 
>be ?", obviously assuming the cue-bis was a two-suiter (wrong ! It was 
>natural). Please comment this attitude.

North's question is over-leading, but I don't see this as a major sin.

>Now East answered "diamonds, I suppose".
>c) do you give any credit to East's potential claim that "I was wondering 
>about the meaning of 2H, but the question convinced me that it should be 
>two-suited" ?

Sure. I believe him. Still MI, though. Doesn't matter.


>d) Is West's 3H bid, in the context of this MI, "failure to play bridge" ? 
>His hand is
>xxx - AQxxx - AJxx - x

I'll assume "West" means "South."

I need more information, though. What were the agreements, *really*? We don't know. We don't know if there were agreements? There aren't enough facts to get this right. 

If 2H shows spades and diamonds, 3H is foolish - a penalty double is standout - but it looks like it was caused by the MI, assuming there was MI. When something is directly caused by the MI, whether it's something we wouldn't do or not, it's a problem. Assuming MI, 3H does not break causation.


>e) The TD decided to let 3NT be the final contract (he judged 3H to be 
>absurd) but canceled the double. Please comment.

I don't see a reason to cancel the double.

--JRM