[BLML] Marvin's argument

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Fri May 28 11:29:39 CEST 2010


Herman De Wael a écrit :
> If I have understood most of the posts in these threads, Marvin's 
> argument goes as follows: (apologies if I got any of this wrong, the 
> argument and my counterarguments are still valid)
>
> When a player has UI, he is not allowed to take an action that is a LA 
> to another action, and which has been suggested by the UI. But 
> (according to the argument), he should be allowed to take an action that 
> is not in itself a LA, since no-one would take that action.
>
> An example: a player realizes, through UI, that the contract that is 
> reached (5Cl) is a disatrous one. he would like to change it to 5Di 
> (which is a reasonable contract), but the UI suggests this and passing 
> is a LA. He is not allowed to bid 5Di. But is he allowed to bid 6Di 
> instead, when 6Di is a gamble which no-one would seriously consider or 
> take, and which is therefore not a LA?
>   
AG : a firm no. Absent UI, he would never have bid 6D. Substract UI to 
see what should have happend.




More information about the Blml mailing list