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

[Jerry Fusselman]

[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.

A simple example: if David Burn attempts to reply 2C (Stayman) to his
partner's 1N opener, before his RHO has called, a director may rule
that David's partner is in receipt of unauthorised *information*, in
spite of David's protests that Stayman conveys no information whatever.

[Jerry]

David, I think Nigel has you here.  What part of his argument do you
disagree with?  Do you think that there is no such thing as a negative
inference as Nigel means, or do you think that they are not really
information for some reason?

And what is your response to Nigel's devastating (to your position) example?

Why not just admit that ordinary Stayman conveys information?
Negative information if you like to call it that, but information just
the same.

Jerry Fusselman