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

[Jerry Fusselman]

Richard Hills wrote:
> Jerry Fusselman asked:
>
> >Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial?  I ask because of the
> >2007 Lawbook's definition:  "Artificial call - is a bid, double,
> >or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken
> >for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play
> >in the denomination named or last named; or a pass which promises
> >more than a specified amount of strength or if it promises or
> >denies values other than in the last suit named."
>
> [snip]
>
> Jerry Fusselman asserted:
>
> >The parenthetical messes up the intended meaning
>
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> In my opinion, the parenthetical is exactly as intended.
>
> North-South are playing Standard American, South is dealer ->
>
> SOUTH    NORTH
>
> 1D       1H
>
> Without the inclusion of the parenthetical, North's 1H response
> would be artificial, since North conveys forcing-for-one-round
> information which is other than willingness to play in hearts.
>

Richard, this is not particularly relevant to my post.  We want a
definition that works well in all cases.  I know you like to write
about fallacies, so I will state yours.

Your premise is that I suggested that the fix to the definition simply
to delete the parenthetical.  That's not what I said at all---you
might want to reread the parts you snipped.  What you have done here
is known as the straw-man logical fallacy---a special case of
Argumentum ad logicam.

Why not address the question about ordinary Stayman?  By not
addressing it and just using your one example, you commit the fallacy
of hasty generalization.  Even if a definition works well for one
consideration, it may work poorly for others.  You merely showed that
it works well for one consideration.

Jerry Fusselman