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

[Jerry Fusselman]

[Richard]
>
> Okay, 1H promising hearts but also promising one-round-force is
> not artificial because one-round-force is taken for granted.

[Jerry]
Suppose that 1H being one-round-force is taken for granted.  If I play
*not* forcing, does that makes it artificial?  I cannot tell from the
definition, and I cannot tell what your position is.  But this is not
really my original issue at all.

[Richard]
>
> But even if 2C Simple Stayman is taken for granted (not so in
> Australia where Extended Stayman is common) it does not promise
> clubs but rather implies at least one major instead.  Ergo, the
> Definition of "artificial" should be construed to be consistent
> with ->
>
> Law 29C:
>
> If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws
> 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather
> than the denomination named.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> -> so therefore 2C Simple Stayman remains artificial (although
> Law 40B1(b) empowers the Regulating Authority to rule that 2C
> Simple Stayman ceases as a Special Partnership Understanding).
>

[Jerry]

This time your fallacy is begging the question, petitio principii.
(You have mentioned petitio principii probably a dozen times on BLML.)
 I will show it carefully.  The original question is whether ordinary
Stayman is artificial under the new laws.  Your argument that it is
artificial depends on Law 29C, which besides being a reach, *assumes*
that the call is artificial.  Law 29C:  "If a call out of rotation is
artificial..."  A sentence that starts "If A" is a case of assuming A.
 You assumed your desired conclusion.  You can never use a statement
of the form "if A then B" as evidence that A true.  This is elementary
logic.

Besides, in the original post I gave a deductive argument that it is
not artificial under the new definition.  I am gaining confidence that
my argument was correct in all details.  However, perhaps you, or
someone else, can do me the honor of looking at it and trying to name
a step that seems inadequate.

Jerry Fusselman