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

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Jerry Fusselman]

>.....
>then 1H would have been artificial merely
>because it is forcing for one round---i.e.,
>it shows some minimum strength.
>.....
>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.
>.....

[Richard Hills]

No, a call can be "forcing for one round"
without promising any strength.  For example,
it is popular amongst some circles in the
ACBL to respond to partner's SAYC 1C opening
with a "forcing for one round" 1S on a
yarborough and six spades.

What I am saying is that the Culbertson style
of "approach forcing" has had remarkable
longevity from the 1930s until now, so it is
a prime candidate to qualify for "information
taken for granted by players generally".

[Jerry Fusselman]

This is really a bad situation.  Really bad.  Who decides what is
"information taken for granted by players generally"?  1930 Convinces
you.  Well, what if that started in 2003?---is that too late?  A
definition of artificial with "taken for granted by players generally"
is sure to provide lots of randomness as the beholder decides what it
means.

By the way, your example about forcing vs. strength is not that
convincing, because a really long suit is strength in and of itself.
You can be relatively strong without many HCP if your suit is long
enough.  If 0 HCP with 6 spades is enough to warrant that 1S response
but 0 HCP with 4 spades is not, then there is still a minimum strength
requirement.  Do you really think that HCP is all that matters for
determining strength?

Your position on my statement is unclear to me.  Do you agree or
disagree with my proposition, trying to understand your position, 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."  Actually, I agree with this statement, given the current laws,
though I find the result untenable.  Remember, I am going by the new
definition of *artificial*, not necessarily common sense or previous
understandings of what is artificial.

Jerry Fusselman