[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Guthrie]

[paul lamford]
The panel in our example were not only split as to what bid to make, but
they were also split as to what bid was *demonstrably* suggested. I am 
happy with a majority decision on whether an action is 70% or whatever 
percentage we decide the new criteria require, but if a bid is to be 
deemed *demonstrably* suggested we surely need close to unanimity that 
it is suggested, or  why bother with the word *demonstrably* at all?

[nige1]
OK lets go back to the recent example...
  - We were split whether to pass or bid 3C. That merely shows that, for 
us, both were logical alternatives.
  - What is important is that we also disagreed as to what bid was 
*suggested* by the unauthorised information. Although I think a 
majority, who expressed an opinion either way, thought that 3C rather 
than pass was so-suggested.

What is the *practical* meaning of *demonstrably* suggested? If a 
player's peers most often select a particular call as suggested by the 
UI, does that suffice to deem it *demonstrably* suggested? (Surely it 
would make sense).

Or is Paul right? Do we need virtual unanimity?  Paul has several big 
guns on his side. Many legal gurus have opined that, in Bridge Law, 
"Demonstrably" is a synonym for "Provably". Near unanimity still seems 
to be a ludicrously high standard. In practice, it is rarely met.

For example, in all the UI cases discussed in BLML (and in other fora), 
can you remember any case of unanimity over what the UI suggested? IMO, 
if BLMLers were deemed their peers, not a single alleged offender, who 
chose a winning action when in receipt of UI, would be penalized, using 
the strictest criteria.

Are there *practical* *common sense* guidelines (e.g. a percentage 
probability) for deciding what is "demonstrably" suggested? or do such 
decisions depend (as usual) on the mere whim of the director or committee?

If you disagree with with Grattan, Paul, Alain and Co, then you should 
have the guts to say so. If there is anything wrong with the rules of 
Bridge, then it is not just the fault of the law-makers. The main blame 
must lie with the apathy of players and the laziness, stupidity, or 
timidity of directors.