[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").

[Ed Reppert]

Seems to me David is right here. 2C does not in itself convey any
specific information about responder's hand. It is his rebid that may
do that.

[Jerry]

Good, it is better to refute a position that more than one person holds.

So, David and Eric, you both argue that `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").'

I find it an amazing position. You two are saying that if you cannot
say specifically and for sure something about North's hand, then you
have no knowledge whatsoever about his hand. By that thinking, an
opening bid of a multi 2D provides no information whatsoever, because
no one can say anything specific about Opener's hand in six words or
less.  Do you really think that?

Maybe the fact that "everyone" knows what the multi 2D opening shows
messes up this example for you.  Whether or not the meaning of a bid
is common knowledge is not crucial.  I'll give you another example.
Suppose my defense to 1C Precision includes a 1D overcall showing
either hearts or the black suits.  Is my partner allowed to say that
my 1D overcall provides no information because he cannot, as David put
it, "describe some specific feature" of my hand?  Any reasonable
bridge player would say "no", and yet reasoning from the quote,
David's and Ed's answer would be "yes."

It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information
about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands
that can make the bid.  Nor is it valid reasoning to say that a bid
provides no information about a hand simply because the information it
provides cannot be completely summarized in six words or less.

Jerry Fusselman