[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[David Burn]

On 15/05/2008 14:42, "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:

[EL]

> 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.

[DALB]

Part of the problem is the use of the word "could", which does double duty
in English as an indicative past tense ("I could run very fast when I was
young") and a conditional present tense ("I could run very fast if I weren't
so fat") of the verb "can".

When one reads the words of the Laws, there is a tendency to become confused
about what part of the verb is actually being used. Suppose the bidding goes
1NT - slow 2NT (invitational). It could be that the pause is because the
bidder is thinking of passing; it could be that the pause is because the
bidder is thinking of bidding game; it could be that the pause is because
the bidder has temporarily forgotten the range of 1NT. And I can easily
demonstrate that any of those things could be the case.

In addition, I can demonstrate *in any given case* that the slowness of 2NT
could suggest anything. For example, suppose that in the actual case the
bidder was thinking of bidding game. It could be that this player only makes
slow invitational bids when he is close to bidding game, and that his
partner is aware of this and accepts on anything other than complete
minimums. Suppose on the other hand that the bidder was thinking of passing:
it could be that all his aggressive bids are slow. The pair may protest that
this is not in fact the case - the player always bids in perfect tempo, but
occasionally forgets his no trump range. But they will protest in vain.

Now, it would be impractical to say to a pair who had bid 1NT-slow 2NT-3NT
on a medium hand that in future we will be watching them to see whether or
not they do in fact always have extras for slow invitations. Nonetheless, it
is possible whenever a slow bidder's partner guesses well to adjust the
score under the "demonstrable" wording of the Laws just as much as under the
"reasonable" wording of the Laws, and Eric's "opposite adjustment test" is
of no actual avail, although as a practical matter it appears to me to be a
useful device for those who believe that the game should be played according
to their own interpretation of the rules, rather than according to the
actual words of the rules. The actual words of the rules, of course, should
be changed to eliminate "could", or the education of bridge players and
bridge administrators should be extended so that some of them know what it
means.

David Burn
London, England