The Teapot Trick

[barmar]

I've decided that I was way too harsh earlier. Mea culpa

 

This hypo isn't stupid, the whole point of it is to expose the problem of the vagueness of the "could have been aware" law. SB loves laws like this, because he's (she? it?) an expert at interpreting them to his advantage.

 

It's clear to us that it was never intended to apply to the teapot trick, but where do we draw the line? Without specific guidance, this law essentially legitimizes the Probst-cheat philosophy.

[mycroft]

To me the line is "could the Probst Cheat do it without giving the game away?" and "ooh, it looks if I could be burned, it will be to my advantage after hearing 'queen's in LHO's hand if anywhere' to show that the K is in the pocket, even if it becomes a MPC and I'm forced to lead it against 6♠ or 6NT, so let's figure out some way to drop it 'by accident'" goes way too far down the path of "if the Probst Cheat can pull this off, why doesn't he use his brilliance and card manipulation skills to win every Fast Pairs that exists, or be a professional card magician?" for my BS-o-meter.

 

On the other side of the coin to me, clearly, is the "bar partner to play in Blackwood"; potentially even the "create a mPC that 'gives the game away'" issue; potentially even the "create a MPC that forces partner to make the winning defence" - but that's closer to the edge, as working out that declarer can't not take the bait is a challenge.