[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Eric Landau]

On May 15, 2008, at 1:03 PM, David Burn wrote:

> 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.

The problem with David's interpretation is that it would be perfectly  
valid, and presumably correct, if L16B1 prohibited choosing an action  
"that could have been suggested over another by the extraneous  
information".  I would argue that the word "demonstrably" is there  
for a reason; it must require a stronger test for adjustment than  
would be the case were it not there.

"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."  So if the law was "could have been suggested" we would  
have grounds to adjust.  But to adjust on the basis of "could  
demonstrably have been suggested" we would need some reason to think  
that this might actually be the case for this player, not just "it  
could be...".


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