[StevenG]

 aguahombre, on 2013-September-10, 10:36, said:

I chalk it up to same as the revoke penalty, where sometimes the OS just can't break even.

Hestitating isn't an infraction.

[aguahombre]

 StevenG, on 2013-September-10, 11:27, said:

Hestitating isn't an infraction.

We are way past that obvious point. We are talking about the Law which addresses choosing from LA's, determining whether a bid is a LA, and whether there must be a LA which demonstrably could not have been suggested.

[StevenG]

No, you compared a situation where there is an infraction, and therefore an OS, to one where there isn't.

In your interpretation, player A hesitates but hasn't infracted. His partner, player B, who has done nothing wrong whatsoever, now has no bid that won't be ruled against despite there being no infraction. That is a lunatic way to run a game, and cannot possibly be the intent of the law-makers.

I don't think anyone has any real idea what the phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" actually means. How do you parse it grammatically? "Could" suggests some sort of conditionality, but conditionality of what? Trying to establish this from grammar sites (not bridge-related, and without the word "demonstrably") online, it seems to suggest something genuinely likely, rather than something theoretical, and the word "demonstrably" can only be there to strenghen the need for likelihood.

[campboy]

 StevenG, on 2013-September-11, 02:39, said:

I don't think anyone has any real idea what the phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" actually means. How do you parse it grammatically? "Could" suggests some sort of conditionality, but conditionality of what? Trying to establish this from grammar sites (not bridge-related, and without the word "demonstrably") online, it seems to suggest something genuinely likely, rather than something theoretical, and the word "demonstrably" can only be there to strenghen the need for likelihood.

I believe the point of the "could" is just to avoid us having to speculate about what was actually going on in the player's mind when he chose the alternative in question, like the various "could have known" laws. If something would have been demonstrably suggested to most of a player's peers (which is what we actually try to determine) then it could demonstrably have been suggested to that particular player.

[StevenG]

 campboy, on 2013-September-11, 02:57, said:

I believe the point of the "could" is just to avoid us having to speculate about what was actually going on in the player's mind when he chose the alternative in question, like the various "could have known" laws. If something would have been demonstrably suggested to most of a player's peers (which is what we actually try to determine) then it could demonstrably have been suggested to that particular player.

I don't think that's true though. I often know what a partner is thinking about when they hesitate through knowledge of that partner. If I say why I chose an alternative, and the reason is valid, and partner has a hand consistent with that reason, is there any reason to adjust? On the other hand, if you postulate a situation where a partner's peer might hesitate, but my partner never does, and partner's hand is not consistent with your hypothesis, can you really justify adjusting? You have demonstrated nothing.

[c_corgi]

 campboy, on 2013-September-11, 02:57, said:

I believe the point of the "could" is just to avoid us having to speculate about what was actually going on in the player's mind when he chose the alternative in question, like the various "could have known" laws. If something would have been demonstrably suggested to most of a player's peers (which is what we actually try to determine) then it could demonstrably have been suggested to that particular player.

How do we try to determine if it would have been suggested to most of a player's peers? I thought that the polling and peers etc was for determining LAs and that the nature of the UI would not be revealed to the pollee where possible. I assumed that whether it could have been demonstrably suggested was determined by analysis rather than polling.

[campboy]

 c_corgi, on 2013-September-11, 03:22, said:

How do we try to determine if it would have been suggested to most of a player's peers? I thought that the polling and peers etc was for determining LAs and that the nature of the UI would not be revealed to the pollee where possible. I assumed that whether it could have been demonstrably suggested was determined by analysis rather than polling.

Yes, we analyse the situation rather than poll, but still we are trying to analyse what might be suggested to a hypothetical player. "Peers" was the wrong word to use, since as Steven points out what really matters is the similarity of the partner (and the player's knowledge of his partner), not of the player themselves.

I've certainly been polled about what was suggested on occasion -- at least I consider it "polled" rather than "consulted" if I'm there as a player

[pran]

"Could" is there so that the Director does not have to prove that something was indeed suggested, only that it "could be suggested".

But some real foundation for such assumption is still required, "could" does not imply that any wild theory could be suggested.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2013-September-11, 06:01, said:

"Could" is there so that the Director does not have to prove that something was indeed suggested, only that it "could be suggested".

But some real foundation for such assumption is still required, "could" does not imply that any wild theory could be suggested.

OK, so what is "demonstrably" there for?

[blackshoe]

 StevenG, on 2013-September-11, 02:39, said:

No, you compared a situation where there is an infraction, and therefore an OS, to one where there isn't.

In your interpretation, player A hesitates but hasn't infracted. His partner, player B, who has done nothing wrong whatsoever, now has no bid that won't be ruled against despite there being no infraction. That is a lunatic way to run a game, and cannot possibly be the intent of the law-makers.

I don't think anyone has any real idea what the phrase "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" actually means. How do you parse it grammatically? "Could" suggests some sort of conditionality, but conditionality of what? Trying to establish this from grammar sites (not bridge-related, and without the word "demonstrably") online, it seems to suggest something genuinely likely, rather than something theoretical, and the word "demonstrably" can only be there to strenghen the need for likelihood.

"Demonstrably" means that you must be able to show how the UI might suggest a particular call over another. "Could" means that making that call is an infraction even if the player making it didn't "get" the suggestion. As Maddog Probst used to put it "you are not a cheat, but you have done something a cheat would do, so I must rule accordingly".

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2013-September-11, 06:19, said:

OK, so what is "demonstrably" there for?

To emphasize the requirement for a foundation to support the theory.

[gnasher]

Blackshoe's and Pran's answers might work if the wording were "demonstrably could have been suggested over another".

With the actual wording, "demonstrably" appears to operate on "have been suggested", not on "could".

[blackshoe]

It would appear we need a grammarian.

[c_corgi]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-11, 08:26, said:

It would appear we need a grammarian.

He would soon be banished to the changing laws forum.

[blackshoe]

Not hardly.

[Sjoerds]

I would bid 4♣
But you need a poll to find out if pass is LA