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

[Jerry Fusselman]

[JF]

> >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."

[DALB]

Since ordinary Stayman (like ordinary Blackwood) does not convey any
information at all, it is certainly not artificial per the definition in the
2007 Laws. Of course, the definition in the 2007 Laws is more or less
nonsensical.

[JF]

Of course ordinary Stayman conveys information.  For example:  You
don't want to attempt to play in 1NT.  You are far less likely to have
a five-card major.  You don't want to transfer to a minor.  You are
not sure that you want to play in 3NT.  If it really is *ordinary*
Stayman, then you probably have at least one four-card major.

About half of the hands that you might have had you just denied
having.  If that's not information, then someone screwed up the
definition of information.

Any call that removes (or makes less likely) some the hypothetical
hands that were previously consistent with your part of the auction
conveys information by definition.  I expect this to be obvious to any
decent mathematician, and most bridge players.  I would have thought
it obvious to you.

Are you using the word "information" in some special way?

Jerry Fusselman