[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Gampas at aol.com a écrit :
> In a message dated 15/05/2008 02:24:04 GMT Standard Time,  
> Guthrie at NTLworld.com writes:
>  
> [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.
>   
I never said probability wasn't to be used - or tell me where.

I said that possibility alone doesn't suffice and that what some called 
obvious suggestions were not. For example, if partner hesistates before 
answering 1NT (NF) to your 1S opening bid, it is possible that he has 
quite a weak hand, or that he has a near-2/1, or that he didn't want to 
bid 2S on 3(334) pattern. All of these are possible. If RHO overcalls 
2D, they suggest different actions (pass / double / 2S), but none should 
be disallowed, because none is demonstrably suggested.

What I opposed to is the claim that the underbid is nearly always the 
most probable explanation, whence demonstrably suggested, leading to 
disallowing action. This looked to me like the argument of somebody who 
wanted to disallow bidding on principle. I claimed that, when the 
bidding goes 1S - 3S (limit) after BIT, you can't tell whether it meant 
2½ or 3½.

Best regards

   Alain