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

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Jerry Fusselman]

> It is not valid reasoning to say that a bid provides no information
> about a hand simply because there is more than one category of hands
> that can make the bid.  Nor is it valid reasoning to say that a bid
> provides no information about a hand simply because the information it
> provides cannot be completely summarized in six words or less.

[Ed]

Okay, Jerry, I'll play your game.

In the spirit of full disclosure, when you ask me what our agreement
is regarding partner's 2C response to my 1NT opener in an uncontested
auction, you will get this reply: "This is an asking bid. Partner
wants further information from me, particularly about my major suit
holdings. He has 0 to (40-however many points I have) HCP. Fewer than
six spades. Fewer than six hearts. 0-13 diamonds, 0-13 clubs. He may
be balanced or unbalanced."

I don't believe I can tell you anything more specific about partner's
hand until I hear his rebid. I could speculate, along the lines of
"if he has this minor suit holding, he has that strength," and so on,
but it seems to me that such speculation goes far beyond what the
principle of full disclosure requires.

[Jerry]

Not sure what you mean by "game."

I never said anything in this thread about full disclosure.  (By the
way, in bridge, "full disclosure" is an oxymoron, because you always
know more than you can articulate.)  Instead, I said that ordinary
Stayman provides information at the same time it requests it.  I never
said it was always easy to summarize the information a call provides.
But a difficulty in summarizing information is not the same thing as
no information.

Your summary of the information provided by ordinary Stayman is not
very complete, but I admit that it is rather difficult to do a good
job.  I will take a shot at it.  I think the information content of
ordinary Stayman is largely determined by four things:

A. Is 2NT a natural invitation?

B. Do you play Jacoby transfers?

C. When the Staymaner rebids 3 of a minor, is it always weak?

D.  If the uncontested auction goes 1N-2C-2H-3N, is Opener expected to
convert to spades if he is 4-4 or better in the majors?

Suppose the answer to all four of these is "yes."  Here is what I
would say is the information content of ordinary Stayman.  Staymaner
has one of the following:

1. a weak hand that is three-suited or nearly so with short clubs
(Garbage Stayman);

2. a weak hand with lots of a single minor (but possibly with a
four-card major, and Staymaner will probably sign off in 3m);

3. an invitational hand with at least one four-card major (but not 4
spades with 5 hearts, because that invitational hand would have used
1N-2D*-2H-2S);

4. a game-forcing hand with at least one four-card major.  (If
Responder is 5-4 or 4-5 in the majors and is game forcing, then the
next bid, assuming no Smolen, will be 3M showing the five-card suit.
On the other hand, if Responder has 5 of one major and less than 4 of
the other major and wants game, then he will transfer, not use
Stayman.)

Ordinarily, these possibilities would not be explained immediately
after 2C is bid, but 1--4 is an example of the information content of
ordinary Stayman, here assuming that the answers to A--D are all yes.
I am not claiming that anyone should memorize these or alert these or
disclose these.  I am saying this:  It is absurd to argue that there
is no information content whatsoever of ordinary Stayman.  Roughly
half the hands opposite a 1NT opener would find it worthwhile to bid
Stayman, and roughly a half would never dream of it, which proves that
there is information content in Stayman.

Jerry Fusselman