Puppets and Transfers and Relays, Oh My!

[RMB1]

Use of the word "transfer", like most language acquision, will be through hearing others use the term and using it oneself and seeing if it understood. Very little acquision is through looking up a word in a dictionary (or even bridge regulations) and following the definition given there.

 

To complain that a word is being misused in conversation between players is as futile as complaining about annoying new/changed usages in everyday speach.

[blackshoe]

Pointing out that they're wrong, and hoping they'll change, is probably equally futile, but it's not complaining.

 

Today, my 80 something LHO opened 1NT. His somewhat younger partner bid 2♠, and he announced "transfer". I asked for an explanation. He said "we play four suit transfers". I just looked at him. He said "it's a transfer to clubs. 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds." Okay, fair enough. After the round, I commented that the proper thing is to alert any transfer that isn't a transfer to one of the majors. He said "okay". I'd be very surprised if the next time it comes up he says anything other than "transfer". He's a good player, and he's probably been playing since I was a toddler. I very much doubt he's taken any lessons in the last forty years or more.

[RMB1]

OK. My previous post was not directed at annoucements but st "free" language used in explanations. We should expect players to get annoucement correct according to the regulations, and the formal language of announcements may influence the language players use in explanations; but it will take more than definitions in any regulations to change the way players use language.

[ahydra]

Today, my 80 something LHO opened 1NT. His somewhat younger partner bid 2♠, and he announced "transfer". I asked for an explanation. He said "we play four suit transfers". I just looked at him. He said "it's a transfer to clubs. 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds." Okay, fair enough. After the round, I commented that the proper thing is to alert any transfer that isn't a transfer to one of the majors.

 

This is why I'm fully in favour of extending announcements to "everything" on the first round. For instance, why aren't Stayman and Transfers announced rather than alerted after a 2NT opening? Everyone does it because it's the practical thing to do, even though it's not what the regulations say.

 

Partner got it right last night though. 1C-1H(4+ spades) and the opp asked, she said "shows at least 4 spades" rather than "transfer to spades". I'm the one studying to be a TD and I always say "transfer" -.-

 

So what say we post something in the Changing Laws forum, angling for something like announcements on first round of auction for short clubs ("could be as short as 2"), strong clubs ("any 16+") + negative response ("negative"), 1NT/2NT/natural two level openings, stayman/puppet stayman/5card stayman, and any sort of transfer-shaped thing (i.e. it shows 5+ cards in a known suit which you announce by naming the suit).

 

When a major law change comes out, normally clubs put up notices and TDs announce it, etc so players will be aware, and they probably won't object given that they normally announce all these things anyway :)

 

ahydra

[WellSpyder]

why aren't Stayman and Transfers announced rather than alerted after a 2NT opening? Everyone does it because it's the practical thing to do, even though it's not what the regulations say.

ahydra

Not round here, they don't (England, north of London!). Do those announcing Stayman also announce whether it is 4-card Stayman or 5-card Stayman??? Just wait until pran gets to hear about this......

[blackshoe]

So what say we post something in the Changing Laws forum, angling for something like announcements on first round of auction for short clubs ("could be as short as 2"), strong clubs ("any 16+") + negative response ("negative"), 1NT/2NT/natural two level openings, stayman/puppet stayman/5card stayman, and any sort of transfer-shaped thing (i.e. it shows 5+ cards in a known suit which you announce by naming the suit).

Go right ahead. Keep in mind that this is regulation, not law. In North America, for example, we already announce transfers to the majors over 2NT.

[barmar]

Pointing out that they're wrong, and hoping they'll change, is probably equally futile, but it's not complaining.

 

Today, my 80 something LHO opened 1NT. His somewhat younger partner bid 2♠, and he announced "transfer". I asked for an explanation. He said "we play four suit transfers". I just looked at him. He said "it's a transfer to clubs. 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds." Okay, fair enough. After the round, I commented that the proper thing is to alert any transfer that isn't a transfer to one of the majors. He said "okay". I'd be very surprised if the next time it comes up he says anything other than "transfer". He's a good player, and he's probably been playing since I was a toddler. I very much doubt he's taken any lessons in the last forty years or more.

Quite true: old dogs vs. new tricks. He should be proud of himself for adapting to the announcement system that was added a few years ago, although this was probably easier because you hear it happening all the time. But details like this, which seem somewhat arbitrary and don't come up as much, are harder to fix.

 

Related to the language acquisition issue someone else mentioned, there's also the "categorization" issue. Memorizing arbitrary rules is hard, it's much easier to learn general rules. But these rules are often learned intuitively, by generalizing categories from examples, and can result in the wrong categories. Some players just pick up on the idea that announcements are for common conventions, rather than learning the specific set that requires announcements. So you occasionally hear people announce inverted minors, Jacoby 2NT, weak jump shifts, etc.

 

The strange thing for me is that I'm generally the type of person who can't memorize things. I like to keep my bidding mostly natural -- most of the conventions I use need to have a logical structure to them so that I can remember them, and I'm sure I'd be lost in a fancy relay system. But somehow I've never had trouble remembering the details of the alert/announce system -- maybe it's just because there are only about a half dozen arbitrary things you have to remember, and that's within my capacity.

[bluejak]

The opening post was a simple query, which has been answered in full by more than one replier. It seems a curious decision to move this small thread when there is another current discussion still in 'simple rulings' which has had no fewer than 423 replies so far

The difference between Simple Rulings and Laws & Rulings is in the questions asked, not in the answers. So it is perfectly reasonable for a Simple Rulings question to have 400+ replies, and a Laws & Rulings one 10-.

 

You are right that "marionette" is a Bridge World term (quite a useful one in my view). The EBU Orange Book defines the other three of these terms.

Please will someone remind me of The Bridge World definition.

 

As a general rule, though, I'm not sure we should be moving threads from "Simple Rulings" to "Laws and Rulings" just because they get beyond some number X of posts or pages.

I do not think we should.

 

And this (campboy's comment) is my problem. There are *many* people in my area who explain 1NT-2♠ as "transfer", even going to the point of Announcing it (rather than Alerting it, which they must do even if it *is* a transfer, where I play).

When we announce we do not say "Transfer", we say "Hearts" or "Spades". No doubt if we extended announcements to transfers in a minor we wodul say "Clubs" or "Diamonds" which seem unambiguous to me.

 

Then we will move on to our next crusade.

To stop writing 'will' when we mean 'shall'? :)

 

Go right ahead. Keep in mind that this is regulation, not law. In North America, for example, we already announce transfers to the majors over 2NT.

As they do in Northern Ireland. Because they have been going for a few years in England and Wales before Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland decided to introduce them, they have widened the scope based on our successful epxperiences.

 

Scotland think they are an English idea, so they are not going to introduce them. :D

[campboy]

Please will someone remind me of The Bridge World definition.

IIRC a "puppet" requires partner to make a particular call and a "marionette" is similar but permits him to do something else in rare cases. So, at least the way I play lebensohl, 1NT (2♠) 2NT is a puppet but (2♠) dbl (pass) 2NT is a marionette.

[pran]

Just wait until pran gets to hear about this......

What makes you think that I will bother?

[barmar]

When we announce we do not say "Transfer", we say "Hearts" or "Spades". No doubt if we extended announcements to transfers in a minor we wodul say "Clubs" or "Diamonds" which seem unambiguous to me.

Not necessarily. Many play that 2♠ is a puppet to 3♣, but responder uses this with either minor, correcting to 3♦ if that's his suit. I'll bet many would announce this as "Clubs", even if the regulation were to say that this annoucement should only be used in the case where you're specificalling showing ♣.

[WellSpyder]

What makes you think that I will bother?

Fair enough. My comment was meant as a light-hearted reminder of recent discussions, rather than as a challenge.

[aguahombre]

Not necessarily. Many play that 2♠ is a puppet to 3♣, but responder uses this with either minor, correcting to 3♦ if that's his suit. I'll bet many would announce this as "Clubs", even if the regulation were to say that this annoucement should only be used in the case where you're specificalling showing ♣.

Precisely why, IMO, it should remain an alert and not an announcement.

 

I don't even feel good about announcing 2D since the "transfer" could be broken by a Walsh Relay; but, that is the way it seems to be right now (here). "Transfer to hearts, usually." May I say that?.

[Vampyr]

I don't even feel good about announcing 2D since the "transfer" could be broken by a Walsh Relay; but, that is the way it seems to be right now (here). "Transfer to hearts, usually." May I say that?.

 

Do you mean that it might be hearts and might be something else instead? I think an alert would be better. People will hear "transfer to hearts" and then turn off their ears.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that the ACBL regulation on Announcements is pretty clear that the wording of the announcement should be as prescribed in the regulation: "fifteen to seventeen" (or whatever it is) for the 1NT opening, "transfer" for a red suit transfer to the next higher suit (one of the majors) at any level in response to a no-trump opening bid, overcall, or rebid, "forcing" or "semi-forcing" for a 1NT response to a 1M opening bid with no interference, or finally "may be short" for a 1m non-forcing opening which could contain fewer than three cards in the suit.

 

In the Walsh relay case, I agree with Stef — alert the 2♦ bid. The alternative is to announce "transfer", and then alert responder's subsequent 2♠ bid, which is probably also correct, since at the time 2♦ is bid, opener assumes partner has hearts. Some will no doubt argue, though, that the latter approach is not "full disclosure".

[mjj29]

It seems to me that the ACBL regulation on Announcements is pretty clear that the wording of the announcement should be as prescribed in the regulation: "fifteen to seventeen" (or whatever it is) for the 1NT opening, "transfer" for a red suit transfer to the next higher suit (one of the majors) at any level in response to a no-trump opening bid, overcall, or rebid, "forcing" or "semi-forcing" for a 1NT response to a 1M opening bid with no interference, or finally "may be short" for a 1m non-forcing opening which could contain fewer than three cards in the suit.

 

In the Walsh relay case, I agree with Stef — alert the 2♦ bid. The alternative is to announce "transfer", and then alert responder's subsequent 2♠ bid, which is probably also correct, since at the time 2♦ is bid, opener assumes partner has hearts. Some will no doubt argue, though, that the latter approach is not "full disclosure".

Indeed, if it doesn't necessarily have hearts (by agreement), then it doesn't show hearts, even if responder will always make a bid catering for hearts being the option.

 

That would be like describing 2C (weak 2 in diamonds or an Acol 2C bid) as 'diamonds' because responder will always bid 2D in case it was a weak 2 in diamonds.

[mycroft]

I would be one of those who says that it's not full disclosure, Ed, if it weren't for the fact that that case (2♦ shows "hearts or some rare hand that may have no hearts") wasn't explicitly in the Alert Procedure as being Announced as Transfer (and the rare case Alerted when discovered).

[barmar]

I play a system where 2♦/♥ responses to 1NT are two-way -- 2♦ shows either ♥ or ♣, 2♥ shows either ♠ or ♦. We always alert them, we don't announce -- the ACBL alert procedure says that announcements are only for normal transfers to the majors. I explain them as "Usually a transfer to major, but may be the start of a sequence to transfer to minor." My partner's wording, which I don't like as much, is "Usually a transfer to major, but may be a transfer to minor."

[blackshoe]

I would be one of those who says that it's not full disclosure, Ed, if it weren't for the fact that that case (2♦ shows "hearts or some rare hand that may have no hearts") wasn't explicitly in the Alert Procedure as being Announced as Transfer (and the rare case Alerted when discovered).

Hm. So it does. I guess I don't agree with Stefanie after all. Sorry, Stef. :)

[blackshoe]

I play a system where 2♦/♥ responses to 1NT are two-way -- 2♦ shows either ♥ or ♣, 2♥ shows either ♠ or ♦. We always alert them, we don't announce -- the ACBL alert procedure says that announcements are only for normal transfers to the majors. I explain them as "Usually a transfer to major, but may be the start of a sequence to transfer to minor." My partner's wording, which I don't like as much, is "Usually a transfer to major, but may be a transfer to minor."

 

Are these hands game going?

[mycroft]

I would Alert Barry's "transfers", because the "non-heart" case is "not rare". I don't Alert my Keri 2♥ (although I do Alert the 2♠ continuation that "could be, in fact usually is, only 4 hearts" (not full disclosure, but the reason I'm Alerting it. Obviously when they ask, I give everything) because it fits the "rare" philosophy in the Procedure, and I do in fact have hearts (just fewer than most would expect).

 

Looking at that section again, maybe I'm not as on firm ground as I like - as our "exception" is INV, not GF. Having said that, we *do* in fact promise (4 of) the suit, even in this case. But National TDs have agreed with my logic when I asked as a player, so until I'm told otherwise...

[Vampyr]

Hm. So it does. I guess I don't agree with Stefanie after all. Sorry, Stef. :)

 

That's quite all right with me. I do find the regulation surprising.

[barmar]

Are these hands game going?

No, they're the same kinds of hands that most players would transfer with. Why does it matter?

[aguahombre]

I would be one of those who says that it's not full disclosure, Ed, if it weren't for the fact that that case (2♦ shows "hearts or some rare hand that may have no hearts") wasn't explicitly in the Alert Procedure as being Announced as Transfer (and the rare case Alerted when discovered).

Just in case anyone might have been confused by an extra negative or two in the above, here is the ACBL wording straight from the Alert Procedures:

 

(Referring to when an announcement is to be used)

 

"After a ♦ or ♥ transfer response at any level to any level natural notrump opening, overcall or rebid.

 

An Announcement also is used for those methods that initially treat the bid as a transfer even though rarely the bidder will have a strong hand without the next higher suit. When the message is sent that the transfer was not a transfer, just the first step in showing another type of game-going hand, the call that sends that message must be Alerted."

 

From what I read of the above, Barry is right to be alerting his methods. The possibility that 2♦ or 2♥ might actually have a minor suit instead of that major is not rare. And, if it does have a minor instead, it is not strong. Blackshoe's question about whether those hands are game-going was indeed relevant.

[barmar]

Ahh, I see. What the regulation seems to be addressing is the case where the "transfer" is used as a temporizing bid for some rare hands that are otherwise difficult to describe. It seems similar in spirit to not requiring alerts for jump shifts and/or reverses, even though they're sometimes made into fake suits because it's the only way for opener to establish a game force.

 

This is definitely not the case for my transfer system. I use it just as a more efficient convention than typical 3-way and 4-way transfers, since it leaves 2♠, 2NT, and 3♣ available for other meanings.