[blml] When AI confirms UI, are we completely free to act?

[Adam Beneschan]

Raija wrote:
 
> > Yesterday, the bidding started:
> > part          me
> > 1Cl   pass   1Sp   pass
> > 1NT   pass   2Cl
> >
> > This was of course check-back, or Roudinesco as we call it.
> > It was partner who had said at the start of the tournament that we
> > would play Roudi, so I was quite surprised to see no alert. This was
> > quickly confirmed by the bidding:
> >
> > part          me
> > 1Cl   pass   1Sp   pass
> > 1NT   pass   2Cl   pass
> > pass
> >
> > RHO then prevented the problem from becoming non-existant by keeping
> > the bidding open:
> >
> > part          me
> > 1Cl   pass   1Sp   pass
> > 1NT   pass   2Cl   pass
> > pass  2Di
> >
> > My first action was simple, but my problems were not over yet:
> >
> > part          me
> > 1Cl   pass   1Sp   pass
> > 1NT   pass   2Cl   pass
> > pass  2Di    pass  pass
> > 3Cl   pass
> >
> > I held 5 spades, 4 hearts and 10 points (2-2 in the minors), and I
> > knew (by UI and AI) that partner believed I had club support, so his
> > clubs were not such that 3Cl would be easy.  Was I allowed to bid 3He?
> >
> > Consider this: suppose partner had duly alerted 2Cl, and then passed
> > it and bid 3Cl. Could I not imagine some 6-card suit with singleton
> > spade? The AI makes it likely that partner forgot, but the UI makes it
> > certain!
> >
> > Just to end the story: clubs were 3-3, so 3Cl made, which scored
> > average because many pairs were in 4He (he had 4 hearts), mostly going
> > down.
> >
> 
> I think there is a third aspect:  opponents have received MI.  If opponents 
> had been correctly informed about your agreement (alerted) that 2C was 
> Roudinescu and not natural club support, they might have chosen some other 
> call than 2D.  I assume Herman corrected the MI before the opening lead was 
> made. 

Yeah, but most likely the MI has no effect in this case.  It would
have an effect only if the opponents would have been sufficiently
likely to get a better score if they had received the correct
information.  In this case, if they had known that 2C was a checkback
and opener passed it, they probably would have passed on the
assumption that the opening side was having an accident, but
unfortunately this would have worked just as badly as letting them
play 3C did, so the MI caused no damage and therefore there would be
no adjustment.  Of course, I'd need to see the actual hands if I were
going to make an actual ruling.

                                -- Adam