[blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artifical?

[David Burn]

[GE]

I am inclined to wonder how the phrase "about North's hand" has come to be
inserted in this sentence. Does it imply that the sense of 'information' in
the laws is in some way directed to information about North's hand? Where
does such a suggestion arise?

[DALB]

I have always presumed that the laws prohibit communication between partners
other than by means of legal calls or plays, but that this prohibition is
intended only to prevent (say) North from communicating anything to South
about North's hand (or anything else that might influence South's bridge
decisions) other than by means of legal calls or plays. I would have no
difficulty, for example, with an auction along the following lines:

North: "Hello, my dear chap. How's the wife? 1NT."

East: "Pass."

South: "Very well, thanks. 2C."

Now, if it were suggested that "How's the wife?" showed a maximum, or that
"Very well, thanks" showed at least an invitational hand, then the auction
could well attract the attention of the judiciary. A prima facie case might
arise if South were, for example, either a bachelor or a widower. But
otherwise, one assumes that "information" in the context of the laws of
bridge relates only to relevant information that might be conveyed in the
course of a hand of bridge.

David Burn
London, England