[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Guthrie]

[Nige1]
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.

[lamford] Not so. For a bid to be demonstrably suggested, I offered the
opinion that a split view as to whether it was suggested at all made it 
seem improbable that it was demonstrably suggested. There is nothing 
much wrong with the word *demonstrably*. Let us say that LHO opens 5C 
and partner passes after a  BIT, greater than that allowed. RHO passes. 
Partner must have been considering bidding or doubling. I would say that 
the bid that caters for the  hand partner is most likely to have for a 
BIT is the one that is  demonstrably suggested. Assuming of course that 
our bid is not automatic. So the  balance of probability comes into the 
equation very  strongly.

[Nige2]
[A] Paul's view seems impractical because, in BLML and elsewhere, there 
is always a dispute over which action is suggested by unauthorised 
information.

[B] I have long held that the a priori probability of the various hands 
that partner could hold, should be taken into account as part of the 
estimate of the balance of probability.

[C] In another post Paul says that the law permits you to choose 
*illogical* alternatives; but that is against the spirit of the law. 
Most legal experts judge it to be illegal. For example, some BLMLers 
argue that a seemingly *illogical* alternative, invoked to wriggle out 
of the law is, in fact, quite *logical* in that *context*.