[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").

[JF]

Yes, I am indeed inclined to think of the problem as one schooled in
the mathematics of information theory.  Thanks for noticing that.

However, the discipline of information theory is not supposed to help
you come up with totally alien answers to the problem at hand.  If it
did, then the use of information theory was incompetent.

If you agree that I got the information theory right, then I must have
gotten the whole thing right---otherwise, it is not valid information
theory.

So I can understand your position better, please let me ask you this:
Suppose you are the opener, and the auction goes 1NT-2C-2H-P (no
competition).  If the opponents ask you what your partner has shown, I
imagine, from what you wrote above, that you would convey something
like this:  "2C is just an asking bid which therefore gives no
information whatsoever about partner's hand, and pass here has a
totally obvious meaning, so good luck, you are 100% on your own, I
don't have to say a thing more."  Do I have your answer approximately
right?  Seriously, what you say, and why?

Alternately, perhaps you can tell me which kinds of asking bids convey
any information at all.  And which kind of bids that are consisent
with more than one kind of hand convey any information at all?  From
your position above, it would appear there aren't any in your
estimation.

Jerry Fusselman