[blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longerartificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
*****************************
One of the great joys in later life is 
not to be faced with hikes in mortgage 
repayments when  the last repayment 
has been made.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guthrie" <guthrie at ntlworld.com>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer 
                   artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> [JF]
> Are you using the word "information" in some special way?
> 
> [DALB]
> No - it is you who is doing that, in the sense that you are using the 
> term in the sense in which it is used in the phrase "information 
> theory". I am using the term in the sense in which it is used in 
> English: that is, if North has provided South with some information 
> about North's hand, 
<
+=+ I am inclined to wonder how the phrase "about North's hand" 
has come to be inserted in this sentence. Does it imply that the sense 
of 'information' in the laws is in some way directed to information 
about North's hand? Where does such a suggestion arise?
       I do see in 2007 Law 16B1 a reference to "information that 
may suggest a call or play". I do not see a mention of information 
about the content of any hand and it seems to me that information 
which 'may suggest a call or play' might, or again might not, reflect 
something about North's holding. 
                                                   ~ Grattan ~   +=+