MI / UI / AI: How different can the deemed knowledge of each side be?
I originally posted this under "Adjusted Score - what would be led?" but it has since transpired that the auction I was told was not in fact what happened. The actual auction brings up completely different issues about MI, UI and AI.
This is the hand:
N E S W
Pass 1H 3C* Pass
Pass X XX Pass
Pass 3H Pass 4H
*not alerted, but turns out it's Ghestem, showing Spades and Diamonds.
I am looking at E's bid of 3H. If E knows that 3C is Ghestem, but that N has taken it as natural, would E in fact pass and collect a large penalty? By passing after E's double, W is indicated as having clubs (because he has no other bid).
It seems slightly absurd that E gets to both know that 3C is Ghestem (as he would have had it been alerted) but also that N has taken it as natural. In real life this can't happen. N either alerts (E knows it's Ghestem) or doesn't (N believes it's natural). Can E be credited with the both the correction of the MI and the AI that N believes S has a lot of clubs (and indeed that S should be assuming that N has a lot of clubs)? Can E have his cake and eat or, or when looking at adjusted scores do we assume that the 3C is alerted (as it should have been) and N is aware of the meaning?
My instinct says that E can have his cake and eat it, even though this is harsh on NS.
There is also the fact that E may not even double if the 3C is alerted. Can E choose to keep the double but pass the XX (when I enquire as to how the auction might have gone)?