The terms below should be understood as follows:-
‘simple reaction’ automatic response to a stimulus
‘choice reaction’ appropriate response to more than one stimuli –viz
‘simple choice reaction’ appropriate response between two stimuli
‘multiple choice reaction’ appropriate response between three or more stimuli.

Decision making is either spontaneous or tactical. In the first instance it is the comprehension of a momentary opportunity, in the second instance it is the premeditated result of some earlier observation. In both cases the fencer recognises a known situation and employs a known stroke, either immediately or when they can recreate the opportunity. It follows that, in the delivery of the stroke, the opportunity, tactic and stroke are known to the fencer, and the fencer is not seeking to explore and discover a means of hitting once the fencing phrase has begun - which is the error most frequently made by many novice fencers.

The competent fencer will make a decision (of first or second intention or of inducement) before the commencement of an offensive action - including its preparation. Thereafter any subsequent action performed will be the result of reaction. Such reaction, if it is to be successful, has to be a trained automated response.

Both in the bout and in training decision making and reaction take place at several levels, but the decision making processes and reactions of the fencing lesson are not always the same those in the bout. Conversely some of the decision-making processes of the bout are not always realistically practised in the lesson.

The fencer relies on five receptive attributes:
(1) Decisions made prior (i.e. premeditation of first or second intention).
(2) Reactions to expected stimuli (‘simple reaction’ or ‘choice reaction’).
(3) Confirmation of an expected situation.
(4) Reactions to unexpected situations (automated or instinctive actions).
(5) Decisions made in response to unexpected situations (spontaneous decisions or ‘change of intention’).

Receptive Attribute (1)

These are decisions made from prior observation. In the lesson this attribute is sometimes neglected as the decision making process is controlled by the coach and instruction is given to the fencer. The fencer needs to be included in the decision making process. The simplest way to achieve this is to give the fencer the choice of final stroke or timing. In a tactical lesson this is not difficult; the fencer is given an attack and the coach responds without comment. It is for the fencer then to decide on an appropriate first or second intention action to be employed.

Again in a tactical lesson the final stroke can be chosen and varied by the fencer. For example in a counter-time exercise where the fencer, following a preparation and feint, parries a stop hit they may finish either directly with a lunge, or from the parry hold the blade and take a prise-de-fer (e.g.a croisé to flank) or take an indirect riposte.

When a competitive fencer is practising first intention attacks the difficulty for the coach is not to give overt signals or openings to invite the attack. To pause with the feet, freeze momentarily with the blade or even puff up the chest are all part of the repertoire used by the coach to signal that the moment is right. However in reality if the fencer responds to such signals the real timing has already passed, and in any event it is for the fencer to learn to choose the moment.

Receptive Attribute (2)

In the controlled environment of the training session or lesson a fencer can be given a choice of a limited number of expected stimuli (‘multiple choice reaction’), this stimulates technical ability and tactical understanding, and introduces a range of strokes and interest. However, although such exercises may be educational and stimulating teaching aids, they are not always realistic for the bout. The larger the range of stimuli the more likely it is that we move from reaction to the slower process of decision making, whereas in the bout the fencer will probably need to react to a single stimulus (‘simple reaction’) or perhaps deal with the possibility of two stimuli (‘simple choice reaction’). Especially in a training session or lesson prior to a bout it is desirable to reduce the number of choices for response such that the fencer can achieve a high success rate and be dynamic in the delivery of the hit.

Additionally it is more empowering if the fencer, rather than the coach, instigates the phrase. For example the student fencer performs a beat or engagement at a moment of their choosing, and then delivers one of two (or several) attacks according to the coach’s response.

Receptive Attribute (3)

Considering receptive attribute (3), there are many instances both in training and the bout when the fencer’s confidence in the delivery of a hit is reinforced by the appropriately corresponding simultaneous action of the coach or opponent. The fencer does not look for such confirmation before acting, for to do so would introduce an extraneous decision making process, but is aware of the action taking place simultaneous to his or her own. For example as the fencer completes an attack, the opponent’s stop-hit is perceived out of time, or as a fencer completes a final disengage of a progressive compound attack, the opponent’s parry is seen finishing in the wrong line. The important point is that if the fencer fails to perceive the expected corresponding action, they may well react as if to any other unexpected situation and hesitate or compromise their intended action.

Taking the two examples given. A fencer, who having advanced in engagement, releases the opponent’s blade and commences a direct lunge then realises that the opponent remains passively on guard whilst stepping back. The reaction to this might be to abandon the original attack, or break the timing and make a spontaneous decision to use broken time, or to seek counter-time or a compound action with a flèche. Likewise a fencer disengaging with the intention of a compound attack and failing to see the corresponding parry would have to abandon the attack, complete the attack in another line or change the timing of the attack (e.g. to broken time).

In each case what happens is that the fencer (a) decides on a tactical stroke, (b) reacts to the expected stimuli in order to commence that stroke, and (c) passively confirms the delivery of the stroke as it is completed; otherwise at this point the fencer may react instinctively (d) as in response to any other unexpected situation but then has the possible option of (e) making a further and spontaneous decision (i.e. ‘change of intention’).

The relevance of this to the coach is three-fold .
First, when practising first intention actions, the coach can neither remain passive when a fencer is completing the stroke being practised [by simply receiving hits from the pupil the coach does not give the total image (gestalt) to which the fencer should become accustomed in order to develop the ability to execute a change of intention in the bout], nor should the coach change his foot or blade work in mid-stroke.

Secondly, although the coach may give a choice at (b), another choice cannot be introduced at the point (c) above. The fencer has launched the offensive and the only alternative is to abandon the original attack (d) - there is no time for further choices.
Put simply it would be detrimental for the coach to give a series of ‘choice reactions’ introducing the attack.

Thirdly the coach may introduce a new action at point (e) above. In effect the fencer has halted the attack and the coach may then give a new action for the fencer’s response. This would most normally be an action on a change of distance.

Receptive Attribute (4)

Turning to the ability of the fencer to react to unexpected situations. Apart from the situation described above, where the reaction leads to a change of intention during the attack, the usual situations encountered where the fencer needs to react without premeditation are:-
when attacked on the preparation of an attack of first or second intention,
when the fencer’s parry is deceived,
when the opponent pauses or gives ground in a phrase.

In rehearsing or training the fencer’s ability to react to an unexpected situation, there are two preparatory building blocks (a) the mechanical repetition of the strokes, and (b) the concept of ‘simple choice reaction’ (i.e. the fencer responds to one of two known stimuli). However sometimes the ability to successfully employ choice reaction is mistaken for the ability to react and it then becomes the end product, rather than being the penultimate step to reaction training.

To illustrate this let us take a sample exercise based on the first situation above - when attacked on preparation. The fencer advances with an engagement in quarte, and anticipating the opponent’s automatic evasion continues with a circular quarte beat and direct attack. The whole is completed with a step-lunge accelerating from the beat. The coach’s action is to evade the first engagement and extend from the fencer’s beat so enabling the fencer’s successful attack. After a number of successful attacks the coach then (without warning) performs a disengage lunge on the fencer’s first engagement. The reaction required of the fencer is to halt the advance and, in place of a quarte beat, employ a quarte parry and riposte. The danger is, of course, that the fencer cannot control the forward momentum and is impaled trying to form the beat.

First we can drill the respective actions:

For the attack, the attempted engagement is formed as the front foot advances, then the circular beat is performed with the hand advancing, the beat arriving fractionally ahead of the rear foot landing and the whole then accelerated. For the parry, the attempted engagement is formed as the front foot advances, then the circular parry is formed with the hand drawn back slightly as the step is completed, and the riposte delivered in place.

The coach, in roughly equal proportions, either permits the fencer’s preparation and attack or the coach attacks on the fencer’s preparation. The fencer advances and perceiving no threat accelerates the attack, or stops with a parry if the coach’s attack is seen. In this exercise each time the fencer advances there is a known choice to be made. Sometimes a fencing drill finishes at this point but it is the next stage that truly improves the fencer’s reaction.

The fencer on his or her initiative launches the attack in their own time. The coach permits the majority of the attacks (even to the extent of encouraging and motivating the fencer), but when the coach has the rhythm of the fencer, the coach attacks unexpectedly. Such attacks should be few in number in keeping with the desire to improve the fencer’s reaction when performing at speed.

Considering the second situation; the necessity to take a second parry by reaction when the first parry has been deceived. This can be developed in training in the same manner using drilling, choice reaction and finally testing reaction. To demonstrate this let us look at the fencer’s response to a deceived parry of circular sixte.

First we can drill the respective actions:

The fencer engages sixte and in response to the coach’s disengage attack parries circular sixte and ripostes. The second drill would require the coach to use a compound attack and for the fencer to follow the circular sixte parry with a quarte parry in place of the riposte. The degree to which this drill is broken down will be very much depended on the skill level of the fencer. For example a less experienced fencer may have to practise individual transports of sixte and quarte, fixing the position of the blade at the end of each movement.

The fencer knows that there is a need to respond to one of two known stimuli either there is contact with the blade (confirming the successful parry), or there is no contact and this is the stimulus for the second parry. As with the first phase this can be performed at different skill levels. With a less experienced fencer a transport of circular sixte with blade contact is used. At the completion of sixte the fencer senses whether or not the blades are still in contact before riposting or placing the blade in quarte.

Again the role of the coach is to permit the fencer to succeed with the majority of strokes (at a speed realistic to the bout) and only occasionally to deceive in order to prompt the fencer’s reaction. As in the previous example the difficulty for the coach is to create a situation where the fencer is truly reacting and is not premeditating. This is in order to maintain or improve the fencer’s technical ability under stress.

Receptive Attribute (5):

Such spontaneous decisions are often taken at a point when the fencer realises that, although the ultimate offensive stroke has not succeeded, there is a moment when the opponent is incapable, hesitant or distracted and that this moment may be exploited. This situation can arise following the fencer’s riposte or counter-riposte, or following the fencer’s first or second intention attack.This concept of spontaneous decision requires both reaction to an unexpected situation and a decision as to whether to continue and if so with what stroke.

One method to coach this would be to first drill the pupil in a 'choice of action' exercise, and later to unexpectedly prompt this during a routine lesson. For example, at épée, the pupil practises taking the opponent's extension with an octave bind varying the target to thigh, foot (with redoublement to arm) or chest with fleche. Later the coach, from time to time,introduces unexpected opportunity during an otherwise routine lesson.