[campboy]

 lamford, on 2013-June-03, 12:30, said:

No TD that I have spoken to has thought that "demonstrably suggested" just means that the likely success of a bid goes up because of the UI. And if I am "misquoting" you on that, I apologise.

It doesn't just mean that the likely success has gone up; it means it has gone up relative to that of the other action. Admittedly my first post carelessly glossed over this distinction.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2013-June-03, 12:48, said:

It doesn't just mean that the likely success has gone up; it means it has gone up relative to that of the other action. Admittedly my first post carelessly glossed over this distinction.

I still understood the point you were making. But I think that you are interpreting the Law without the word "demonstrably". A small increase in the chance of success of an LA relative to another LA does not make one LA demonstrably suggested if the other LA is still the normal call. I recall one of the two deposits which we retained when an opponent with AKJx x AQxx AKJx had a second bite of the (same) cherry after, at love all, 1H - (X) - 4H - (Pass)* - Pass - (X) (*BIT). This led to 4S+1 and the opponents asked for a ruling over the second double. One person polled by the TD passed (but he was frozen in a car's headlights at the time, and thought he might go minus if he bid). The other five had a second double, and the TD ruled no adjustment. The oppponents appealed. Double was considered so automatic that we kept the deposit.

You would, no doubt, adjust it back to 4H undoubled because the UI suggests passing (as partner was thinking of doing something) and the chance of success of double has gone up (relative to Pass) because of the UI. I think that there is a third criterion, and this is where the word "demonstrably" comes in. The UI must "demonstrably" suggest Double (in this case) for it to be disallowed. What that word means is anyone's guess. I would suggest that it means that double was likely to be more successful than Pass because of the UI but without it was not. On reflection, because we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders, I would disallow a call which is suggested over another unless it was thought to be substantially better despite the UI. Blackshoe's "clear and undeniably" is a good guideline.

[blackshoe]

"Demonstrably," according to my New Oxford American Dictionary, means "clearly and undeniably".

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2013-June-03, 13:42, said:

I still understood the point you were making. But I think that you are interpreting the Law without the word "demonstrably".

I'm not. I just don't always bother to type it out. Let me try again with the help of copy and paste. I think a one LA is suggested over another if the likely success has gone up relative to that of the other action owing to the UI. I think it is demonstrably suggested if the likely success has demonstrably gone up relative to that of the other action owing to the UI.

In the case you post it is pretty clear that double is demonstrably suggested over passing (surely by your definition as well, since double is obviously better than passing), but also that passing isn't an LA (which sounds like the basis of both the TD's ruling and the AC decision as well). One person may have passed but (presumably) no-one else seriously considered it.

[mycroft]

Well, if the chance was zero without the UI, and non-zero with the UI, that seems to be a much bigger jump than from 30% to 50%.

Zero is not just a number - it is somewhat special.