Tollemache Qual 1 (EBU)

[bluejak]

Tonight I gave my regular partner the sequence

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d(Multi)p4c(Asked)p4h]133|100[/hv]

and told he that 4♣ was asked, and described as "asking me to transfer into my major". I then asked her what 4♥ meant.

 

"Hearts" she said, "he asked to transfer into his major so he did."

 

I suggested that 4♥ might show spades, as she and I play.

 

"Don't be ridiculous," she said, "he was asked to transfer into his major."

 

I think the people who support a pair who cannot be bothered to give an adequate explanation of their methods should reconsider their position.

[mrdct]

Totally different from this 4♣ which is a transfer [ok, technically a puppet, but how many players really appreciate the difference] to a different suit from the one held.

Evidently you have transfer/puppet confusion also. A puppet requires partner to make a specific bid (usually the next suit up) irrespective of what he has in his hand; whereas a transfer shows length in a specific suit (usually the next one up). This 4♣ is neither a transfer nor a puppet; it is a conventional bid asking that partner reveal which major he holds by transfering to it. You seem to think that "asks me to transfer to my major" means the same thing as "asks me to bid my major".

 

Whilst I fully agree that it is the duty of person giving an explanation to make sure that his explanation has been understood, the vernacular of bridge includes a number of terms for which it is reasonable to expect that your opponents will understand the universally accepted meaning. For example, "pre-emptive", "stopper", "control", "points", "shortage", "majors", "minors", and (dare I say) "transfer". Some of these terms, e.g. "transfer", are also explicitly defined in laws and regulations. If I come across an opponent who may not know what "pre-emptive" means, am I meant to protect myself and make sure that he understands what I meant by the term "pre-emptive"? If I'm playing against a pair straight out of the beginners' class, yes I will say something like "he has 6 or 7, perhaps even 8, bananas and less than X points" but I wouldn't dream of doing so against a pair playing in a representative even if some of the representatives are from relatively minor regions. I still can't see how anyone but the most inexperienced player could have been mislead by the explanation of 4♣ in the OP, but evidently east-west here did misinterpret it so the only conclusion I could reach is that east-west are complete noobs.

[bluejak]

Evidently you have transfer/puppet confusion also. A puppet requires partner to make a specific bid (usually the next suit up) irrespective of what he has in his hand; whereas a transfer shows length in a specific suit (usually the next one up). This 4♣ is neither a transfer nor a puppet; it is a conventional bid asking that partner reveal which major he holds by transfering to it. You seem to think that "asks me to transfer to my major" means the same thing as "asks me to bid my major".

You have completely missed the point. It does not matter one iota what I think or believe: when you explain an agreement you are meant to explain it fully and unambiguously. Whatever mrdct and bluejak think transfer means, the majority of people if told a bid transfers to opener's major assume that means opener will bid the major. Therefore N/S misinformed E/W.

[gordontd]

While I was at the event, one of the players involved told me about this ruling. Because I was there as a player and not a TD (and it was early in the morning!) I didn't want to get drawn in to a discussion about it, but when she said "it asks me to transfer to my major" I assumed that when she bid hearts she had hearts. I must say I've never before encountered this system being described in this way, and I don't think it was adequate disclosure. I would probably have ruled the same way as the TD at the table, and been surprised that the AC overturned it, but I wasn't there so perhaps the players presented additional information that led the AC to believe the explanation was adequate.

 

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy for EW to keep their bad result.

[mrdct]

Tonight I gave my regular partner the sequence

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d(Multi)p4c(Asked)p4h]133|100[/hv]

and told he that 4♣ was asked, and described as "asking me to transfer into my major". I then asked her what 4♥ meant.

It might have been a good idea to conduct your survey using the actual explanation given in the OP of "asks me to transfer to the major I've got" rather than "asking me to transfer into my major". If anyone is going to misinterpret what is meant by "transfer" in these explantions, I think the latter is probably a little bit more likley to be misinterpreted as the construction looks more like opener is expected to do the definitive action.

 

Whatever mrdct and bluejak think transfer means, the majority of people if told a bid transfers to opener's major assume that means opener will bid the major.

I agree that what mrdct and bluejak think "transfer" means matters little which is why we turn to the EBU defintion of what "transfer" means for guidance. "Bid your major" means just that, "transfer to your major" means something entirely different. It's also interesting to note that the Orange Book overtly cautions people that use of the term "puppet" could be open to misinterpretation so advises that puppets be explained in more detail, but makes no such warning in relation to the term "transfer" no doubt as it is unforseable that anyone would not understand what a transfer is.

[gordontd]

-"Bid your major" means just that, "transfer to your major" means something entirely different.

Does it? If asked what is the meaning of my 2NT response to a 1NT opening, I would say "transfer to diamonds". I think that answer would be perfectly clear that I am showing diamonds - and it doesn't necessarily mean "bid diamonds".

[campboy]

Whatever mrdct and bluejak think transfer means, the majority of people if told a bid transfers to opener's major assume that means opener will bid the major. Therefore N/S misinformed E/W.

But the opponents were not told 4♣ transfers to opener's major; if they were of course this would be MI. They were told it asked opener to transfer to his major.

[c_corgi]

Leaving aside the debate about N/S disclosure, the existence of which bemuses me, is there any evidence to suggest damage, apart from self-serving statements by E/W? The only logical way I can see to interpret their actions is that W doubled 4C to show clubs and East cuebid North's suit as a raise of clubs. This would imply that East at least had understood the explanation.

[MickyB]

Tonight I gave my regular partner the sequence

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d(Multi)p4c(Asked)p4h]133|100[/hv]

and told he that 4♣ was asked, and described as "asking me to transfer into my major". I then asked her what 4♥ meant.

 

"Hearts" she said, "he asked to transfer into his major so he did."

 

I suggested that 4♥ might show spades, as she and I play.

 

"Don't be ridiculous," she said, "he was asked to transfer into his major."

 

I think the people who support a pair who cannot be bothered to give an adequate explanation of their methods should reconsider their position.

 

Perhaps your partner has heard you misuse the word "transfer" before? I gave the exact explanation to a player less experienced than any at the Tolle, who had never played the method.

 

"I hope this isnt a trick question because I'll guess spades"

 

[i suggest it might show hearts]

 

"You used the word transfer"

[gnasher]

I think the confusion arose because the verb "to transfer" as used by most bridge players means something different from the normal English meaning. "Partner opened 1NT and I transferred to hearts" means "I made a transfer bid of 2D, showing hearts", not "I bid 2H to play"; "I took a train to Crewe and then transferred to the London train" means "I got on the London train", not "I asked someone else to carry me to the London train".

 

However, I don't think this is relevant. Apparently EW asked about the 4♣ bid, but didn't bother to ask about 4♥. The most that the explanation of 4♣ tells them is what North would have done if East had passed. However you interpret the phrase "asks me to transfer", that can only refer to the expected sequence where the next hand passes. Nobody can reasonably assume that it means "asks me to transfer to my major regardless of what the next hand does." Even if you were playing 4C as "asks me to bid my major", you might well do something different over a double. Hence, East should have asked about 4♥ rather than assuming that the meaning was the same as it would have been over a pass.

 

If I had been South, I would have avoided this problem by breaking the rules and alerting 4♥. Others might have used the "half alert" technique, where you reach for the alert card and then guiltily withdraw your hand, as though you've just remembered that the rules changed a decade ago. But we can't penalise South for following the rules.

Edited November 29, 2011 by gnasher

[Trinidad]

When I am told to transfer to a major it means bid the major - that is what transfer means.

I won't fix your posts, I will quote it first and then suggest a correction. I would correct it to:

 

When I am told to bid a major it means bid the major - that is what bid means.

 

When I am told to transfer to a major it means transfer to the major - that is what transfer means.

 

Rik

[VixTD]

This ruling divided the directors and appeals committee / players, and this seems to be borne out in this discussion. The TD adjusted the score (to what exactly I'm not sure), but denied redress to EW for their wild or gambling action. When I heard that NS were going to appeal I fully expected the AC to keep the deposit, as did the TD who gave the ruling. The AC overturned the ruling in a trice. I thought they were wrong, and still do.

 

I have some sympathy with the other camp, as I suppose a literal interpretation of the explanation is indeed what they say, but the potential for misunderstanding here is huge, and the onus is on the side playing complex methods to explain their agreements clearly. I gave the auction and explanation up to and including 4♥ to two players at the club last night (who, admittedly, wouldn't get into even the Staffs and Shrops Tollemache team, but were no strangers to congresses). When I asked them to tell me what they thought NS had, they both assumed opener had hearts rather than spades, and were astonished to learn otherwise.

 

Mamos made the interesting suggestion that East's 4♠ bid should be considered a serious error related to the infraction, and therefore untouchable by law. I still think it comes under the classification of "wild or gambling". It certainly looks like a wild bid to me, rather than just a mistake.

[Oof Arted]

But the opponents were not told 4♣ transfers to opener's major; if they were of course this would be MI. They were told it asked opener to transfer to his major.

 

 

I won't fix your posts, I will quote it first and then suggest a correction. I would correct it to:

 

When I am told to bid a major it means bid the major - that is what bid means.

 

When I am told to transfer to a major it means transfer to the major - that is what transfer means.

 

Rik

 

 

My reading of the problem exactly Whether it is English I leave to the academics

[Pig Trader]

Firstly, my thanks to Vix for putting his fingers to the keyboard for the OP. He and I discussed at the end of the event whether to post details of this ruling here. I also composed this post before seeing his most recent post, so apologies for some duplication.

 

I was the TD that gave the ruling and I’ve been following this thread with considerable interest.

 

37 counties sent teams of 8 to about 10 players, and the counties were drawn into 4 groups of 9 or 10 teams each to play round-robins over about 96 boards. Two groups played in a large hall while the other two groups, including mine, were separate in smaller rooms. Two TDs looked after and scored for each group.

 

As Mamos suggested, the relative strengths of the counties were quite varied. The NS pair had each played for England not too long ago, while the EW pair came from a sparsely populated county.

 

As Jeremy suggested, there are two elements. Do we adjust for NS and do we adjust for EW?

 

Let’s start with the NS pair and the discussion that has dominated this thread, and which is the more intensely debated issue.

 

East asked about the 4♣ bid at her turn. The 2♦ bid had earlier been explained as a weak two in either major with 0-7 HCP.

 

North said “He’s asking me to transfer to my major”. (I actually noted on the Appeal Record what Vix quoted but the difference is trivial.)

 

If I had been sitting East, I would have thought that the 4♣ bid was somehow some kind of transfer bid, and it would not have crossed my mind that the 4♣ bid was asking North to make a Transfer Bid for South to complete.

 

The actual East was just as certain as I would have been that North held hearts. That’s why East asked no supplementary questions. My colleague TD agreed entirely with my view that the explanation was so poor as to constitute Mis-Information and I ruled under Law 21B that the score for NS be adjusted to 4♠ +1. I later discussed this with at least half of the other TDs at the event and they all took my view.

 

When I advised the NS Pair of my adjustment to their score and that they should make far clearer the way in which they describe the 4♣ bid, for example “asking me to bid the suit below the major that I hold”, they appeared to think I was mad and they appealed immediately.

 

It took a little longer to decide what to do about the score for EW. The double of 4♣ had been intended as lead-directing but East had taken it to show a good hand. East argued that North had shown a weak hand and it was quite possible that South was making some pre-emptive raise. I didn’t consider that the 4♠ bid was WoG but instead that a serious error had occurred. But was this serious error related to the infraction? There was no doubt anywhere that the 4♣ bid was artificial, but that was not the infraction. There is also error by East in that the clear part of the explanation of the 4♣ bid was that South, if he didn’t hold a strong hand, held length in both majors to want to play for 10 tricks in either major. The effect of applying Law 12C1(b) was that EW kept their –1100. One TD at the event and one contributor on this thread suggested that the serious error may be argued to be related to the infraction, and that I was a bit harsh on EW. I did advise EW and their captain of their right to appeal and mentioned that the other side had already appealed and at least one team would have to lose an appeal if they both appealed! The EW team accepted the ruling. As the result of the appeal would not directly affect them, they did not feel the need to represent themselves at the appeal hearing.

 

The consideration for EW turned out to be moot as the Appeal Committee unanimously took the view of many of the other contributors to this thread and felt that the explanation by North was completely clear. I think that the Appeal Committee were as surprised by my ruling as I was by their decision!

 

The reason that I am unhappy with the outcome is that if I had been North and playing the same methods, I would have explained the 4♣ call in what I would consider as a clearer way such that opponents would be correctly informed. I would not receive the 1100 windfall (East said that if she had been informed more clearly, she would not have overcalled at the 5-level). It therefore seems unfair to me that this NS should benefit from giving what I strongly consider to be an unclear explanation.

 

This thread has also highlighted the two schools of thought, again with those I know as EBU TDs taking my views and those whom I know as strong players taking the views of the Appeal Committee. Fascinating!

 

Barrie :rolleyes:

[blackshoe]

[snip]

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy for EW to keep their bad result.

 

Why? And why "of course"?

 

Edit: Ah, I see. You agree with Barrie that the result was due to East's SEWoG 4♠ bid. Not sure I agree with Barrie's analysis, because I'm not at all sure that 4♣ necessarily shows length in both majors. Could not South have a hand that thinks playing in partner's major would be best, in spite of South's major holding?

Edited November 29, 2011 by blackshoe
Barrie's subsequent post

[Ant590]

Really interesting thread. As someone who would probably describe the 4♣ bid in exactly the same way as the OP, I was amazed at those who thought such an explanation was ambiguous. However I see where they are coming from.

 

My choice of words would be from a system file that defines 4♣ as "transfer me to your major" and 4♦ as "bid your major". So as far as I would be concerned that is our agreement, and the opponents are in a situation where they have as much explicit information about the agreement as we have, although I can be sure implicitly I have a greater understanding. I guess there is a fine line between explanations which some would find patronizing (and no doubt tell me so), and those which are cryptic for those not in the know.

[MickyB]

Really interesting thread. As someone who would probably describe the 4♣ bid in exactly the same way as the OP, I was amazed at those who thought such an explanation was ambiguous. However I see where they are coming from.

 

My choice of words would be from a system file that defines 4♣ as "transfer me to your major" and 4♦ as "bid your major". So as far as I would be concerned that is our agreement, and the opponents are in a situation where they have as much explicit information about the agreement as we have, although I can be sure implicitly I have a greater understanding. I guess there is a fine line between explanations which some would find patronizing (and no doubt tell me so), and those which are cryptic for those not in the know.

 

The description of 4D removes any ambiguity about the meaning of 4C.

 

I asked someone who played in the Tolle and who had no preconceived idea of what 4C would mean, they too considered it clear from the explanation that the 4H bid showed spades [FWIW I presented the auction without the double of 4C].

[WellSpyder]

But it doesn't. It asks them to transfer to the suit below the major they have got. I agree it is unambiguous: they are just not playing it the way they have said.

Completely disagree. I'm reluctant to add to the vast amount of verbiage already contributed to this thread, but although I have a lot of respect for Bluejak I do think that on this occasion he is simply on a different planet from the majority of bridge players in not recognising a difference between bidding a suit and transferring to a suit.

 

The point is that the explanation was misunderstood - the EW pair did not end up knowing what NS were doing. This in my opinion is NS's problem not EW's.

Despite my comment above, however, I'm happy to accept that this gets to the crux of the matter. I will certainly be more careful in future in explaining this agreement if it ever comes up when I am at the table since the onus is clearly on the explaining side to get their agreement across. Of course there comes a point where you simply have to assume the opponents have understood clear english, but the very existence of the debate on this thread makes clear that there are better ways of trying to avoid confusion in explaining this agreement than the approach adopted in the case under discussion.

[gordontd]

Why? And why "of course"?

 

Edit: Ah, I see. You agree with Barrie that the result was due to East's SEWoG 4♠ bid. Not sure I agree with Barrie's analysis, because I'm not at all sure that 4♣ necessarily shows length in both majors. Could not South have a hand that thinks playing in partner's major would be best, in spite of South's major holding?

I think 4♠ is a wild bid.

[RMB1]

The point is that the explanation was misunderstood - the EW pair did not end up knowing what NS were doing. This in my opinion is NS's problem not EW's. ...

 

But there must be a line. At some point an explanation is sufficiently clear and unambiguous and any misunderstanding is the fault of those hearing the explanation. The Laws do allow that players can misunderstand (Law 21A) or not pay sufficient attentions (Law 74B1).

 

It can not be an absolute defence to say I understood explanation X to mean Y and get an adjustment.

 

But the onus must be on the explaining side to be clear and unambiguous. To me (and campboy) this explanation was clear and unambiguous and we have to strain to start to understand it as EW did. This is perhaps because we have heard the explanation before, and "know" that 4D means "bid your major" and that 4C/4D mean different things. As I said earlier, I would not rule solely on the basis of my understanding of the explanation, but I would try to establish how EW's peers would understand the explanation. I would also establish if EW's peers would expect to protect themselves by asking the meaning of 4♥ (over the Double).

[mrdct]

This thread has also highlighted the two schools of thought, again with those I know as EBU TDs taking my views and those whom I know as strong players taking the views of the Appeal Committee. Fascinating!

What this illustrates is a tendancy from experts to take a few things for granted when giving explanations such as what the term "transfer" means. Not that I would ever claim to be an expert, but I guess I can be little bit guilty of that myself. Whilst I do try to gauge the skill level of my opponents and dumb-down my explanations accordingly, there is a risk of coming across as a condescending tool if you do things like explain to your opponents what a pre-empt or transfer is. Having said that, in my regular partnerships we play transfers in a lot of situations but rarely use the word "transfer" to describe transfers which can be made on four-card suits and simply say, "that shows 4+ bananas" as I have been in the situation where an opponent claimed damage due to playing me to hold five-cards in my transfered suit as he'd never seen anyone transfer with a four-card suit before.

 

When this thread started, I honestly couldn't think of an alternative explanation for 4♣ that would be more clear than that which was given, but it is now evident that amongst lower-skill players in the UK, "transfer" does not have the same meaning as set out in the Orange Book, so it does seem that some extra care is warranted in that part of the world.

[blackshoe]

At the club today I asked half a dozen people, of varying ability, what they thought was going on here. All of them said 4♥ showed spades. :o ;)

[Pig Trader]

I asked three players at my club this evening. One has played for England and he wanted clarification of the explanation. Another was the captain of a county that won their group at the Tollemache and she thought that hearts were held. Finally I asked my partner and she couldn't believe it meant spades.

 

I think it makes quite a difference whether one has encountered such methods before.

 

.... it is now evident that amongst lower-skill players in the UK, "transfer" does not have the same meaning as set out in the Orange Book, so it does seem that some extra care is warranted in that part of the world.

 

The Orange Book has, in its glossary, a definition of a Transfer Bid. It doesn't have a definition of the verb "transfer". The explanation was "asking me to transfer to my major" and not "asking me to make a Transfer Bid to my major".

 

Barrie :rolleyes:

[Trinidad]

I think it makes quite a difference whether one has encountered such methods before.

 

The Orange Book has, in its glossary, a definition of a Transfer Bid. It doesn't have a definition of the verb "transfer". The explanation was "asking me to transfer to my major" and not "asking me to make a Transfer Bid to my major".

 

Barrie :rolleyes:

Are you trying to say:

"Since the verb "to transfer" is not defined in the glossary of the Orange book, players do not necessarily understand it."?

 

In bridge all over, a heart bid is used to transfer to spades or a diamond bid to transfer to hearts. (Note the use of the verb "to transfer".) Are you seriously contending that bridge players in the Tollemache Qualifier would not understand this meaning of the verb "to transfer"?

 

If you say that players in the Tollemache Qualifier have not seen this method before, then I find that strange (given that Multi was invented in th U.K., 50(!) years ago), but I will believe that, as I have never played in the Tollemache Qualifier. But if you state that players in the Tollemache Qualifier do not know what the verb "to transfer" means in a bridge sense, because it is not defined in the Orange book (which, of course, is every bridge player's favorite reading material ;) ), my believing stops.

 

Rik

[campboy]

I asked three players yesterday. None had encountered this method before. One said he didn't know what 4♥ meant and would ask; both the others thought the explanation was unambiguous and meant opener had spades.