[blml] Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial?

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Guthrie a écrit :
> Is ordinary Stayman no longer artificial?  I ask because of the 2007 
> law'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."
>
> Since ordinary Stayman is taken for granted by players generally, it
> is not artificial by this simple logic:  The information ordinary
> Stayman conveys is entirely taken for granted by players generally, so
> there is no information left that was removed by the parenthetical
> phrase, so it conveys none of that special information, so it cannot
> be artificial.  
>
> For example, in America and France, it is considered "Natural to open 
> 1D with S:AKxx H:AKxx D:xxx C:Qx. 
In Belgium, both 1C and 1D would be considered natural here. (BTW, you 
should substract one King, or 1D would be considered as artificial. As 
my partner, who often plays in Paris, says : "weak NTs verge on being a 
HUM here".

There remains one problem in my mind : when a bid contains *less* 
information than exists in the "classical-for-this-sphere" meaning, does 
it make it artificial ?
Say you play a 1/1 is *not* forcing, for example.
Or a relay 2C asking for majors but *not* promising any.
Or a weak 2-bid *not* denying 4 cards in the other major. etc.


Best regards

     Alain

>