[jwlato]

I think you're reading the description incorrectly. It is not meant to be a specific instance that may happen differently for other instances. "You" is an abstraction over all players of the game show, there's an implicit "forall you:" in front of the sentence.

I agree that this is not as precisely stated as it could be. And unfortunately there's a type of logic puzzle that relies on people understanding these implicit quantifiers and being prepared to ignore them, which sometimes makes it hard to determine if they're supposed to be assumed present or not. But the most common interpretation is to include it.

[Jensson]

> I think you're reading the description incorrectly. It is not meant to be a specific instance that may happen differently for other instances. "You" is an abstraction over all players of the game show, there's an implicit "forall you:" in front of the sentence.

But the problem described a specific instance. You are reading it wrong. Right now you are just digging deeper into a hole.

If the problem actually was told as you describe then you would be right, but it isn't. It just describes a single instance, you are at the show, the host opens a door, what do you do?

[jwlato]

You completely missed the point of my comment. The wording describes a specific instance. And additionally, the rhetorical convention implies that there is no instance of the problem for which the description doesn't hold. This part is unwritten; the reader is meant to apply it from context. It seems like this is why there's a big disagreement about this particular write-up. Some people are applying this additional constraint, and others (yourself) aren't. If you counter that this constraint isn't written, and therefore it shouldn't apply, I'm sorry but you're wrong. The author clearly intended it.