[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").
>

[Grattan]

+=+ David, of course, always introduces an element of erudition into
any discussion, however esoteric. Equally true, inclusion of 'artificial
call' in the Definitions could give it a meaning for bridge law that is
not necessarily what it would have if given its dictionary meaning. So,
unusually and inadvertently as it may be, we may have been creative.
It hardly matters since any Regulating Authority can use its Law 40B
power to regulate the use of Stayman. Ipso facto, any understanding
regulated is designated a special partnership understanding.
                                    ~ Grattan ~   +=+
[Jerry]

Grattan, thanks for understanding that my subject in this thread is
focused on the new definition of *artificial* rather than any old
understanding we have had.  However, when you say "it hardly matters,"
you are painting with too broad of a brush.  Do you really think you
took the trouble of writing an explicit definition of "artificial
call" that has little or no effect?   I have a sneaking suspicion it
matters in every single place it occurs in the laws.  It has an effect
especially in laws containing the word artificial without the term
special partnership understanding, such as Law 29C.

Jerry Fusselman