[blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Eric Landau]

On Nov 30, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Guthrie wrote:

> [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, then South will be able to describe some specific
> feature of North's hand ("North has more than 5 hcp", or "North has
> fewer than four spades").
>
> [nige1]
> According to *common-sense*, I feel that negative inferences are
> "information". What is important to directors, however, is what *NFLB*
> means by the word "information".
>
> In NFLB, "negative inferences" seem to be information.

ISTM that in TNFLB, those ubiquitous negative inferences might be  
precisely that "information taken for granted by players generally"  
the parsing of which began this thread.  I think it's too far a  
stretch to include knowledge of any artificial agreements, even ones  
as common as Stayman, as falling into the category of "taken for  
granted by players generally".

Perhaps the idea was simply to preclude the argument that an ordinary  
1H opening might be "artificial" because it denies a seven-card spade  
suit by agreement.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net