This is a new one on me. I guess you could, if you were scientifically minded, play 2C as 'stayman' and 2D as something else. Stayman seems likely to be an incomplete explanation in that case. But it covers a wide range of different systems over 1NT.
Or an inexperienced pair deciding to use stayman on that sequence, that's always possible.
I think I may have agreed to play something like this recently - a double of a short minor opening was assumed to show a weak NT and was responded to in that way, so Stayman and transfers. I don't think it actually came up.
Comments
This is a new one on me. I guess you could, if you were scientifically minded, play 2C as 'stayman' and 2D as something else. Stayman seems likely to be an incomplete explanation in that case. But it covers a wide range of different systems over 1NT.
Or an inexperienced pair deciding to use stayman on that sequence, that's always possible.
I think I may have agreed to play something like this recently - a double of a short minor opening was assumed to show a weak NT and was responded to in that way, so Stayman and transfers. I don't think it actually came up.