[BLML] Marvin's argument
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.
More information about the Blml