[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[Harald Skjæran]

On 19/05/2008, Guthrie <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [Alain Gottcheiner]
> 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.
>
> [Nige1]
> I seem to remember an argument that, in Bridge Law, "provably" is a near
> synonym for "demonstrably. But I would rather move on to the current
> more interesting argument...
>
> As usual, let us make the (sensible but usually unwarranted) assumption:
> that the director asks peers of the alleged offender to judge what the
> unauthorised information suggests, *without* telling them what action
> was chosen or would be successful.
>
> In a seemingly 50-50 case, when the peers of the AO (alleged offender)
> are considering what was suggested, may they use knowledge of the AO's
> idiosyncracies?
>
> Take Alain's example 1S - 3S (limit) after hesitation. Opener now has a
> borderline decision between passing 3S and bidding 4S. Suppose that:
>
> [A] AO is a notorious overbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, his hand is
> probably worth 2½S. Hence the BIT suggests that opener passes.
>
> [B] AO is a notorious underbidder. If he tanks then bids 3S, he probably
> has a hand worth 3½S or more. Hence the BIT clearly suggests 4S.
>
Huh? I'd neither expect a notorious overbidder to tank before doing
what he normally does, nor a notorious underbidder to tank before
doing what he normally does.....

I don't think you can reason like that.

> Controversially, If the AO is an expert, you may take this argument
> further -- even without any other knowledge of the player. An expert,
> after lengthy contemplation of a decision will realise that his
> hesitation may compromise his ethical partner, so he is likely to
> resolve his dilemma by taking action himself. Arguably, if he passes,
> instead, the inference is that game is unlikely.
>
> The unpalatable truth is that in an experienced partnership, the AO will
> be able to guess the reason for partner's BIT better than another player
> or director.
>
> Put him out of his misery. Shoot him! :)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>


-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran