[blml] "Demonstrably" - practical meaning?

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

>> +=+ Oh dear! Tilting at windmills again, my dear Don.
>>        If the finding is that, of the class (whatever this is),
>> 40% of players would think A, 40% B, and 20% C,
>> any one of A, B, or C "could demonstrably have been
>> suggested" (sic).
>>        Somewhere below 20% - probably a long way
>> below  - the Director/TAC will judge an insufficiency
>> of suggestibility and will determine that 'at this level it
>> is not demonstrable that it could be suggested'.
>>     We must keep in mind that a Director's judgement
>> is not addressed to whether the action was suggested
>> but to the question whether it could have been, and to
>> the subsidiary question as to whether he believes the
>> power to suggest adequate for him to believe it
>> demonstrable.
>>                         ~ G ~   +=+
> 
(Harald)
> Well, Grattan, that doesn't help much in the scenario 
> where partner invited to game after a BIT. If both 
> accepting the game or not is suggested, what's your 
> choice - bid slam? Or are you suggesting that
> both acctions (declining and accepting the invite) 
> are OK? :-)
>>
+=+ I have dug into my files of intra-committee 
discussion. I can quote a colleague who expressed 
the desired aim to "assure that our law read clearly 
that any actions that can be based on my partner's 
actions which may become illegal are subject to 
rectification" and to defeat "the bridge-lawyers who 
think that as long as they escape 'logical alternatives' 
they can't be held to account "
      Our intention is that the Director shall have 
power to adjust the score if he thinks the call 
under examination may have been suggested 
over another logical alternative by UI from partner . 
I stress *may have been* not 'was'. At one stage we 
appeared to have a consensus that we would use my 
suggested wording: (viz. "..... the partner shall not 
choose an action for which there is a logical alternative 
action less suggested by the extraneous information.")
however, when we met there was a move in the 
meeting to go back to the former wording since it 
was argued 'if the law ain't broke don't fix it.". This 
returned us to the safety net of Law 73C if there is  
perceived abuse not covered by this ('unbroken') 
wording. My personal opinion was, and is, that 
Kaplan's wording is clumsy but that it is adequate.  
                      ~ Grattan ~  +=+