[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Guthrie]

[Grattan Endicott]
+=+ I certainly did not intend to give the impression that I believed 
the standard was "able to prove it if necessary". It is a judgemental 
matter for the Director and the AC. They have to judge it to be the 
case; they do not have to prove anything.
      The fundamental judgement to be made is whether the extraneous 
information from partner could have suggested the action the player 
selected over another logical alternative action. The word 
'demonstrably' is inserted to provide a kind of load-line indicating a 
minimum level of suggestion to qualify for the award of an adjusted score.
      In the preparation of the 1997 laws the drafting committee spent 
some time looking for a word to replace 'reasonably' because it was felt 
ACs were too easily agreeing that the UI could 'reasonably' have 
suggested the action the player took over the LA. Choice of a word was 
difficult. Finally we settled for 'demonstrably' in the belief that it 
was a better word for the purpose of excluding too easy a judgement that
the law applies, but without making it over difficult to decide that it 
does. Then we let it go to the bridge judgement of Directors and ACs to 
determine case by case whether the law applies. Their decisions, and the 
concurrence in them of national appeals committees, and of supranational 
(Zonal or higher) appeals committees, lead to guiding precedents.
     So no help here for the resolution of your uncertainty. Here I can 
only talk principle. Your best resource is case law and whatever models 
it furnishes. Despite the increasing seminarial influences for 
international harmony in applying the laws, the guidance from these 
tends to vary in consonance with location and its bridge culture.

[Nige1]
Thank you, Grattan, for clarifying what the law-makers intended. It 
seems they were deliberately vague again. Unfortunately, with no 
*practical* criterion for deciding that a call could be demonstrably 
suggested, I am afraid that there will be a substantial minority of 
directors, who, like Paul Lamford and Alain Gottcheiner, reject 
arguments based on the balance of probability.