[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Eric Landau]

On May 14, 2008, at 6:27 PM, David Barton wrote:

>> [Grattan Endicott]
>>
>> [TNLB L16B1]
>> After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information
>> that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a  
>> question,
>> a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert,  
>> or by
>> unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone,
>> gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from  
>> among
>> logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested
>> over another by the extraneous information.
>
> Can I try an example here.
> An auction goes 1S (P) 2S (P)
>                           3H (P) ?
> 3H is a long suit trial bid made after a break in tempo.
>
> Now it is easy to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest a marginal  
> game try
> and also easy to demonstrate that the BIT could suggest opener was  
> close to
> a 4S bid. Does this mean the director should adjust whenever responder
> "guesses" right on a marginal hand irrespective of whether he  
> chooses 3S or 4S?

That is precisely the example cited as the impetus behind the 1997  
change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably".  Since either of David's  
possibilities is "reasonable", adjudicators were able to award an  
adjusted score whenever the 3H bidder "guessed right", effectively  
penalizing the BIT directly.  The authors of T 1997 FLB considered  
this a misinterpretation of their intent, and made the change to  
clarify it as such.  Current doctrine is that if either of two  
possibilities are "reasonable", neither is "demonstrable".  Hence the  
"opposite adjustment" test.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net