[BLML] Marvin's argument
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