[blml] 'normal'

[David Grabiner]

Steve Willner writes:

> I think the 70E1 phrase solves the "Ax problem;" failure to play the ace
> would be irrational.  I don't think it solves the "Ax opposite Kx
> problem."  Neither failure to play the A nor failure to play the K would
> be irrational.  The irrational thing is doing neither of these, but that
> doesn't seem to be excluded by the language.

I don't think this is a problem because there are two separate plays.  With A2 
opposite K3, it is rational to lead the 2. Assuming there are opposing cards 
out, it is then irrational to play the 3.

A more natural example is a finesse.  It may be that the only rational play is 
to lead the 2 from 32 towards AQ, and then playing either the A or Q is 
rational.  However, if the king appears, it then becomes irrational to play the 
queen under it.  Thus we cannot determine whether playing the queen is 
irrational until the time to play the queen occurs, but we have already decided 
that leading the 2 was rational.