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

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Dec 5, 2007 11:44 PM, Ed Reppert <ereppert at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I have no idea if these figures are correct, but never mind. It seems
> that *any* call has some information content.
>
> Okay. So what? I confess I no longer have any idea what the hell
> we're talking about in this thread. :-/
>

[Jerry]

Figures?  What figures?  Roughly is roughly.  Besides, the figures
would depend on many things, such as how strong the NT Opener is,
whether you play transfers, etc..

I am pleased your position has changed from 6 days ago:

[Ed]

Seems to me David is right here. 2C does not in itself convey any
specific information about responder's hand.

[Jerry]

Now, as you just mentioned, you agree with me that 2C Stayman conveys
information.

I will try summarize what is going on for you.

My main question is given by the title of the thread.  It is a very
specific question.  But it cannot be answered without referring to the
new laws.

The side issue discussed above was David Burn's statement that Stayman
conveys no information whatsoever.  I see that you have changed your
position in the last six days to agree that Stayman conveys
information even though it is an asking bid.  Don't know if David's
position has changed.

In the original post, I asserted that the new laws, unfortunately,
makes ordinary Stayman not artificial.  (And David Burn agreed with my
conclusion, though for different reasons.)  No one bothered to
disagree with my assertion, except Richard Hills.  But I think I have
carefully rebutted Richard's position that Law 29C is somehow more
relevant to understanding the definition of artificial than the actual
definition in the new laws.  I think I showed that Law 29C says
nothing about what is artificial.

No one, not even Richard, has argued that the new definition of
artificial makes Stayman artificial.  I find it amazing that no one
has even tried, though I agree that it probably can't be done.  And I
think this problem makes the new definition of artificial suboptimal.
I, naively perhaps, hope it can be fixed well before 2017.

Jerry Fusselman