[BLML] The Monty Hall trap [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Thomas Dehn blml at arcor.de
Mon Dec 13 12:25:34 CET 2010

Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Le 13/12/2010 6:07, Tony Musgrove a écrit :
> > At 02:43 PM 13/12/2010, you wrote:
> >> Eric Landau:
> >>
> >>> Regardless of any UI considerations, it can't possibly be an
> >>> LA for West to pass short of game holding a 16-count opposite
> >>> a partner who has opened the bidding.  When his partner passes
> >>> what he thought was a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, he
> >>> is allowed to "know" that he is having a misunderstanding
> >>> without having "used" any UI.
> >> Richard Hills:
> >>
> >> Wrong argument.  There is not any "knowledge" that East-West
> >> must be having a misunderstanding if West bids 2D intending it
> >> to mean a non-descriptive game-forcing relay, then East alerts
> >> and explains "non-descriptive game-forcing relay" and then
> >> East _intentionally_ selects the Pass card.  (Several times in
> >> the past I have perpetrated such an inconsistency between
> >> explanation and auction due to psyching my opening bid.)
> > Just a philosophical question from someone who knows
> > nothing of the system.  Is it safer to psyche playing a
> > relay system where you hope partner will at some stage
> > relay in a suit you can drop him in?
> AG : it is, but it is illegal. It creates a pattern in psyches.

What makes you think that this would be illegal?


More information about the Blml mailing list