[BLML] Marvin's argument

Matthias Berghaus ziffbridge at t-online.de
Fri May 28 23:51:08 CEST 2010


Herman De Wael schrieb:
> 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.

No one not in possession of UI, that is. If you _know_ you are headed 
for -13 IMP or a cold bottom a loss of 8 IMP or a 20% board looks very 
attractive, doesn't it?

> 
> 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?

If 5D is reasonable, 6D may be bad, but not disastrous, while 5C (per 
definition) is. So, if we didn't have UI tht 5C is a disaster, would we 
ever bid 6D?

> 
> A sense of fair play says that he should be allowed to turn his zero 
> into a gambling small chance at a top, 

A sense of fair play says that we should take our medicine like good 
sportsmen, and not try to wiggle out of it if the laws say we mustn't.

> but I do not believe that this is 
> what the laws intended. After all, if the player needs UI to realize 
> that 5Di is better than 5Cl, chances are that, without the UI, no-one 
> else would realize. Then, 5Di is, according to the same reasoning, not a 
> LA either. So what interpretation can you use that would allow 6Di while 
> also disallowing 5Di?

None. I agree with all your statements from the last paragraph, and the 
reasoning you mentioned.

> 
> What we are aiming for is the ideal situation: no UI. Without UI, it is 
> likely that 5Cl would be the contract. So that is what it's going to be 
> with UI. Never 6Di.

Right.

> 




More information about the Blml mailing list