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

[Herman De Wael]

Ed Reppert wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2007, at 3:21 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

And you would be wrong in that.
You call it speculation, but it's hardly that. It's a subset of hands, 
categorized by statements like -if he has minors, it's that strength.
Full disclosure means just that: full disclosure. Your opponents are 
entitled to know all that.

Of course, in real life, they cannot be interested in all that - it's 
far too much and too vague an information. Therefore, in real life, an 
answer like "I don't know much know, ask me again next round" is 
acceptable, and will be accepted. But it is not what full disclosure 
requires.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html