[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[David Grabiner]

<Gampas at aol.com> writes:

> 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.

"Logical alternative" is needed, but in a different place, as your proposed 
wording is too strong.  The correct wording should be, "the partner may not 
choose a bid that could demonstrably have been suggested over a logical 
alternative by the extraneous information."

LHO opens 1NT, and partner (who has no penalty double available) makes a slow 
pass, then RHO passes.  Partner's slow pass demonstrably suggests bidding over 
passing for you.  However, you have KQxxx AJTxx xx x, and passing rather than 
using your favorite convention to show both majors is not a logical alternative, 
so you are allowed to use your convention.  Under your proposed wording, using 
the convention here would be forbidden regardless of your hand.

As the rule is written now, passing would be allowed with Qxxx JTxx xxx xx 
because the convention itself is not a logical alternative, and that is not what 
we want (and not what TD's enforce).