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

[Jerry Fusselman]

[2007 laws definition]

``Artificial call - is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys
information (not being information taken for granted by players
generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or
last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of
strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last
suit named.''

[Richard Hills]

North-South are playing Standard American, South is dealer ->

SOUTH    NORTH

1D       1H

Without the inclusion of the parenthetical, North's 1H response
would be artificial, since North conveys forcing-for-one-round
information which is other than willingness to play in hearts.

[1997 laws definition]
Convention: ``A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning
other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the
last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards
or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not
make a call a convention.''

[Jerry Fusselman]

Richard's example makes the 2007 definition of artificial look really
bad to me.  He is saying that had the parenthetical not been in the
2007 definition of artificial call, then 1H would have been artificial
merely because it is forcing for one round---i.e., it shows some
minimum strength.  He is saying that the only thing that prevents 1H
from being artificial (under the 2007 definition) in his example is
that the strength shown in the case he gives equals the strength that
is taken for granted by players generally.  It seems he is saying that
*any* bid that shows some point range that differs from what is
generally taken for granted by players generally is artificial no
matter how natural we all would have thought prior to reading the 2007
laws.  If true, that has two terrible consequences:  (1) Lots of bids
that almost anyone would think are natural become artificial due to
their nongeneral point ranges;  (2) You have to somehow learn the
different point ranges that players generally take for granted for
more than a billion different scenarios.

In the 1997 definition of convention, we see the sentence "However, an
agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention."
The law makers seem to have borrowed the 2007 definition artificial
from the 1997 definition of conventional, but they chose to omit that
sentence about strength.  Maybe they took out the sentence about
strength because they wanted to see Richard's interpretation.  Or,
Richard, so far the sole defender of the 2007 definition in this
thread, is wrong that point range determines whether calls are
artificial or not.  Can anyone tell?

Personally, I had imagined that the intention behind the parenthetical
phrase in the 2007 definition of artificial was to handle examples
like the following:  A standard opening bid of 1H that promises fewer
spades than hearts.  It says something about spades, but what it says
about spades is generally taken for granted by players.  But it seems
I was being overly generous.  Now I think I must agree with David Burn
here:

[DALB]

Of course, the definition in the 2007 Laws is more or less nonsensical.

[Jerry Fusselman]

But I am willing to hear people explain why David and I are wrong.  It
is fun to learn something and be amazed.  Does anyone see any way to
make sense of this?

It seems possible that the definition of artificial should have
included something like the following:  "However, an agreement as to
overall strength, or whether it is forcing or not, or suit-quality
requirements, does not make a call artificial."  Something like this
anyway, and probably more provisos should be listed. Anyway, I am
thinking some clarification would help here, otherwise there will
chaos trying to implement laws that contain the word "artificial."

-Jerry Fusselman