[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Gampas at aol.com]

[Nige1]
[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*.
 
[paul lamford]
While there might be some actions which are against the spirit of  the law 
(although I am of the Burn school that following the laws to the letter  should 
never attract approbation, and I hope I am not misquoting him or quoting  out 
of context), the new Laws go to great lengths to define what is a logical  
alternative, so there is no need for our legal eagles to venture an  opinion:
 
[16B1] ...
b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in  
question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious  
consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged  
some might select it.
 
Let us say that someone opened 3NT third in hand on Axx Axxx Axx Axx after  
partner spent a long time as dealer before passing. Partner transpired to have 
a  flawed pre-empt and had xxxx xxx none KQJxxx. Now virtually nobody among  
any class of players would give serious consideration to an opening bid of 3NT  
and certainly none would select it. The logical alternatives for the player  
might be 1C, 1D or, say, a 15-17 NT, and all polled selected the last of these 
 which is not suggested in any way by the hesitation, let alone demonstrably. 
The  player has clearly not <snip> "(chosen) from among logical alternatives  
one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the 
extraneous  information.", and therefore no adjustment is appropriate. He has chosen a 
bid  that might demonstrably have been suggested ... but he has not chosen 
from among  logical alternatives.
 
The wording of the law is just fatally flawed, and should read:
 
"the partner may not choose a bid that could demonstrably have been  
suggested over another by the extraneous information."
 
Why on earth the lawmakers sought to include "logical alternative" and then  
define it is beyond me. It is not needed.
 
This caters for the 3NT guesser in our above example, whom, I hope, we all  
feel should be legislated against to avoid bridge merging with the kitchen  
version.