Puppets and Transfers and Relays, Oh My!

[bluejak]

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 ♣.

They would immediately be stopped. They are not playing transfers, and they are not permitted to use the word transfer in explanation, announcement or description on their SC.

 

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?.

If you play 1NT - 2♦ as a transfer to hearts except in one rare case [usually a 2♠ rebid] then you announce it as "transfer" in the ACBL, but you alert it in England.

[pran]

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 ♣.

They would immediately be stopped. They are not playing transfers, and they are not permitted to use the word transfer in explanation, announcement or description on their SC.

[...]

First just a technicality: In Norway we announce opening bids (only) in the range 1NT thru 2♠. All other calls are alerted when this is required by regulation.

 

Many players here alert 2♠ over partner's 1NT opening bid and explain it as "transfer to either minor".

 

If they include the rebid of 2NT by opener in their system it will similarly be alerted and explained as "he does not have better clubs than diamonds" (or a similar disclosure).

 

A rebid of 2♣ by opener will similarly be alerted and explained for instance as "pass or correct" (i.e. to diamonds).

 

I know of nobody who has any problem with that here, would there be any problem with this disclosure in EBU?

[barmar]

They would immediately be stopped. They are not playing transfers, and they are not permitted to use the word transfer in explanation, announcement or description on their SC.

The same way that people who mistakenly announce this as a transfer now are immediately stopped?

[campboy]

Many players here alert 2♠ over partner's 1NT opening bid and explain it as "transfer to either minor".

[...]

I know of nobody who has any problem with that here, would there be any problem with this disclosure in EBU?

IMO it is clear enough that there isn't really a problem. Though it is not a transfer in the strict sense of the word, once you add "either minor" there is nothing else it can mean. Of course, calling it "canoe to either minor" is just as good; it isn't a canoe at all but that should be obvious from the rest of the explanation.

 

I would discourage an explanation of "transfer to either minor" just in case the player started thinking "transfer" was sufficient. "Canoe to either minor" doesn't have that problem: explaining it just as "canoe" isn't going to mislead anybody.

[barmar]

"canoe"? Is that a bridge term somewhere?

[aguahombre]

"canoe"? Is that a bridge term somewhere?

Yes; so, don't move the thread to the Water Cooler :rolleyes: Actually he was just using a word to stress the point that it doesn't matter what you name it if you are explaining it might show either minor.

[pran]

IMO it is clear enough that there isn't really a problem. Though it is not a transfer in the strict sense of the word, once you add "either minor" there is nothing else it can mean. Of course, calling it "canoe to either minor" is just as good; it isn't a canoe at all but that should be obvious from the rest of the explanation.

 

I would discourage an explanation of "transfer to either minor" just in case the player started thinking "transfer" was sufficient. "Canoe to either minor" doesn't have that problem: explaining it just as "canoe" isn't going to mislead anybody.

Exactly what is the precise definition of the term "transfer" and where can we find it?

Certainly not in the laws of bridge (except in the context of revoke rectifications).

 

Without such (legal) definition: If I say "transfer to a minor suit" it means exactly what I want it to mean, and I describe it that way.

[bluejak]

The same way that people who mistakenly announce this as a transfer now are immediately stopped?

No, because that is not misleading. While the term is meaningless it is unambiguous. We are trying to stop MI not run a course for pedants.

 

Exactly what is the precise definition of the term "transfer" and where can we find it?

Certainly not in the laws of bridge (except in the context of revoke rectifications).

In the Orange book, of cvourse.

 

What on earth fdo the Laws of bridge have to do with defining English regulations?

 

Without such (legal) definition: If I say "transfer to a minor suit" it means exactly what I want it to mean, and I describe it that way.

“When I use a word,” pran said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Be careful you do not fall off the wall. :)

[blackshoe]

Exactly what is the precise definition of the term "transfer" and where can we find it?

Certainly not in the laws of bridge (except in the context of revoke rectifications).

 

Without such (legal) definition: If I say "transfer to a minor suit" it means exactly what I want it to mean, and I describe it that way.

 

There are a lot of places you can find a definition of "transfer". A dictionary, for starters. IAC, the Humpty Dumpty school of disclosure doesn't impress me much.

 

If somebody describes to me his partner's 2♠ bid as "a transfer to either minor" I'm pretty sure I understand him, assuming he means "he could have either minor; he wants me to bid clubs". I'm not at all sure that J. Random Novice will have a clue at all. In which case J. Random Minor has been misinformed, according to my understanding of the law.

[pran]

If somebody describes to me his partner's 2♠ bid as "a transfer to either minor" I'm pretty sure I understand him, assuming he means "he could have either minor; he wants me to bid clubs". I'm not at all sure that J. Random Novice will have a clue at all. In which case J. Random Minor has been misinformed, according to my understanding of the law.

I do indeed expect you would.

 

If J.Random Minor doesn't understand "transfer to either minor" I would expect that he does not at all understand the verb "transfer" in this context and that he would ask what it means. In which case he of course will receive a full and detailed explanation.

 

However Bluejak seemed to state that a player describing 2♠ as "transfer to either minor" would be immediately stopped (in EBU environment), and so far he hasn't bothered to answer my direct question if that player really would have any such problem.

[aguahombre]

At best, 2S "transfer to either minor" is sloppy and would be interpreted as showing one minor or the other. At worst, it is sloppy and could be interpreted as willing to play in either minor holding both minors.

[pran]

“When I use a word,” pran said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Be careful you do not fall off the wall. :)

When I select a statement I express what I intend it to mean, not what somebody in some text unknown to me has defined it to mean.

 

"Transfer" is a word well defined in many dictionaries and there is nothing in those definitions limiting "transfer" to require a single target rather than a group of possible targets.

 

Instead of twisting what I wrote you could be polite enough to answer my direct question (in an earlier post) if a player explaining 2♠ as "transfer to either minor" would have a problem in EBU environment.

[Zelandakh]

I find this thread very much intertwined with Cyberyeti's. While "transfer to either minor" might be correct for some definition of transfer it is not a complete description and also open to being misnterpreted. This is similar to the description "weak takeout double". I find it interesting that some posters have different rulings for one than the other.

 

The main problem I have with "transfer to either minor" is that it does not specify the hand types that can be held. Even if I understand this to mean that the bidder has either clubs or diamonds, there is still a big range of hand types possible and it is extremely unlikely that they can hold all of them. Most players I have heard say this mean a weak takeout into a minor. For some it is something like a weak takeout in either minor or a strong one-suiter with clubs. It could also perhaps mean weak with clubs or GF with diamonds. And many other possibilities exist beyond this.

 

If I ask what a bid means I expect the opponents to explain their agreement, fully. "Transfer to either minor" can never do this and therefore I do not see that it can ever be an acceptable explanation in this situation. Just like in Yeti's thread, you might argue: "Well you accepted an obviously incomplete explanation so it is your fault. The definition means what I want it to mean." But this does not wash. If I ask for an explanation I am entitled to a full description. If you provide a description open to misinterpretation and I misinterpret it in a reasonable way then YOU are the OS. If that misinformation damages our side then I believe I am entitled to redress. In effect, the description means what it was interpreted as, not what you thought it meant, unless the NOS are interpreting a perfectly good explanation in an unreasonable way. In this last case they are acting on the basis of their own misunderstanding; in the other they are acting on the basis of a misunderstanding that comes from an incomplete explanation, which is misinformation.

[nige1]

Without such (legal) definition: If I say "transfer to a minor suit" it means exactly what I want it to mean, and I describe it that way.

"When I use a word," pran said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Be careful you do not fall off the wall. :)

IMO Sven is wrong. The normal Bridge meaning of "transfer" is "showing length in another specific suit"; and to ascribe some other meaning to the word, in a Bridge context, is potentially misleading. Would Sven be happy if some Humpty Dumpty describes his partner's double as "Take-out" when the true meaning is "Penalty" :). Most would deem that to be misinformation :(.

 

Eric Kokish has written a useful guide to filling up the WBF convention card that defines common bidding terms.

 

I accept, however, that it would be better if the law officially defined more basic bridge-terms: so that explanations could be shorter and clearer; it would also be a great help when the opponents speak a foreign language; you would still be allowed to explain in simple words, instead; and you would be obliged to do so, at opponent's request.

[pran]

I find this thread very much intertwined with Cyberyeti's. While "transfer to either minor" might be correct for some definition of transfer it is not a complete description and also open to being misnterpreted. This is similar to the description "weak takeout double". I find it interesting that some posters have different rulings for one than the other.

 

The main problem I have with "transfer to either minor" is that it does not specify the hand types that can be held. Even if I understand this to mean that the bidder has either clubs or diamonds, there is still a big range of hand types possible and it is extremely unlikely that they can hold all of them. Most players I have heard say this mean a weak takeout into a minor. For some it is something like a weak takeout in either minor or a strong one-suiter with clubs. It could also perhaps mean weak with clubs or GF with diamonds. And many other possibilities exist beyond this.

 

If I ask what a bid means I expect the opponents to explain their agreement, fully. "Transfer to either minor" can never do this and therefore I do not see that it can ever be an acceptable explanation in this situation. Just like in Yeti's thread, you might argue: "Well you accepted an obviously incomplete explanation so it is your fault. The definition means what I want it to mean." But this does not wash. If I ask for an explanation I am entitled to a full description. If you provide a description open to misinterpretation and I misinterpret it in a reasonable way then YOU are the OS. If that misinformation damages our side then I believe I am entitled to redress. In effect, the description means what it was interpreted as, not what you thought it meant, unless the NOS are interpreting a perfectly good explanation in an unreasonable way. In this last case they are acting on the basis of their own misunderstanding; in the other they are acting on the basis of a misunderstanding that comes from an incomplete explanation, which is misinformation.

These comments apply equally well to disclosures "Stayman" for 2♣, "transfer to hearts" for 2♦ and "transfer to spades" for 2♥ (all after a 1NT opening bid).

 

My point is that while many contributors here seem to accept "transfer to hearts" and "transfer to spades" as quite OK they reject "transfer to either minor" or "transfer to one of the minors" as being unacceptable. But what is the difference other than that the actual suit will be revealed with the next call?

 

Now what kind of hands would make a "transfer" bid (any one of the alternatives above)?

 

Responder can have a weak hand and wants to park as cheaply as possible with his long suit as trump.

He can have a stronger hand and wants to play game in his major suit but for whatever reason prefers opener to become declarer.

He can have a stronger hand but cannot immediately decide whether they should play game or partscore, and/or in case in NT or with trumps.

He can have a hand with which he aims for slam.

etc. etc.

 

All this is really a deduction anybody can make for himself from the simple fact that responder indicates a 5-card major suit or a 6-card minor suit (without any indication of his strength!) as the case might be and wants another bid from opener. Do you really want all the above to be incorporated in the description of the traditional "transfer" bids?

 

Of course, if an opponent asks clarifying questions they must be answered, and if the particular agreements on the bids are not gerenally known to other players these particulars must be specially disclosed.

[pran]

IMO Sven is wrong. The normal Bridge meaning of "transfer" is "showing length in another specific suit" and to ascribe some other meaning to the word ,in a Bridge context, is potentially misleading. Would Sven be happy if some Humpty Dumpty describes his partner's double as "Take-out" whne the true meaning is "Penalty" :). Most would deem that to be misinformation :(.

 

[...]

The comparison with double would be relevant if the explanation was for instance "takeout to the unbid major suit" while the true meaning is "takeout to any unbid suit". Double for penalty and double for takeout are two entirely different calls.

 

My own agreement for takeout doubles includes that either I can accept any answer from partner or else (if I bid my own denomination in response to partner's answer) I have a hand with typically more than 17 HCP strength.

 

Effectively a takeout double could be described as "takeout to a different suit at partner's choice".

 

Back to normal bridge meaning of "transfer" - I just don't know any good reason why a transfer bid must show length in one particular single suit and cannot show length in one of the two minor suits, i.e. why 2♦ and 2♥ are (acceptable) transfer bids but 2♠ cannot be?

[Zelandakh]

All this is really a deduction anybody can make for himself from the simple fact that responder indicates a 5-card major suit or a 6-card minor suit (without any indication of his strength!) as the case might be and wants another bid from opener. Do you really want all the above to be incorporated in the description of the traditional "transfer" bids?

 

Of course, if an opponent asks clarifying questions they must be answered, and if the particular agreements on the bids are not gerenally known to other players these particulars must be specially disclosed.

The difference is partly contained in your explanation. A transfer to a major shows a 5+ card suit and pretty much any range of strength is possible. A transfer to a minor does not necessarily show a 6 card suit and usually does have some implications as to strength. For example I play 1NT - 2♠ as a range ask that can also contain either a weak take-out in clubs or a hand with 5+ clubs and either a 4 card major or 5+ diamonds with slam interest. Removing the range ask (usually (semi-)balanced) option for a moment and replacing it with a weak take-out in diamonds this scheme would qualify as a transfer to either minor...but imho such an explanation would be MI.

 

And that is precisely the problem with this explanation. There is no standard and therefore no "normal" expectation of what to expect. But your partner does know what to expect. The opponents should have the same information as partner when they ask what a call means. it should not be necessary to ask several follow-up questions to get a simple explanation of what a bid shows. I seem to recall you arguing precisely this not very long ago, abeit to make a different point. Or, if you prefer, I am arguing here that a description of "transfer to hearts" is essentially GBK outside of a novice game whereas "transfer to either minor" is not.

 

A final note - I personally do not use the explanation "transfer to ..." when explaining a red suit transfer bid over 1NT. If the opponents ask if the bid is a transfer I reply "5 or more hearts (or spades)" instead. This has exactly the same number of syllables (4) as "transfer to hearts (spades)" and is (imho) more descriptive, since we are meant to say what the bid shows and not give a convention name.

[c_corgi]

Back to normal bridge meaning of "transfer" - I just don't know any good reason why a transfer bid must show length in one particular single suit and cannot show length in one of the two minor suits, i.e. why 2♦ and 2♥ are (acceptable) transfer bids but 2♠ cannot be?

 

Because if you go down that route, you will end up describing a 2D opening that shows a weak hand with one major as a transfer. And someone will say "Oh, if that's a transfer then I don't see why I can't describe this as a transfer too": eventually the word transfer would end up being diluted to the approximate meaning that "call" has now.

[blackshoe]

f J.Random Minor doesn't understand "transfer to either minor" I would expect that he does not at all understand the verb "transfer" in this context and that he would ask what it means. In which case he of course will receive a full and detailed explanation.

Sure. If he asks.

[blackshoe]

These comments apply equally well to disclosures "Stayman" for 2♣, "transfer to hearts" for 2♦ and "transfer to spades" for 2♥ (all after a 1NT opening bid).

 

My point is that while many contributors here seem to accept "transfer to hearts" and "transfer to spades" as quite OK they reject "transfer to either minor" or "transfer to one of the minors" as being unacceptable. But what is the difference other than that the actual suit will be revealed with the next call?

In the ACBL, that first description is inadequate disclosure (and Stayman requires neither an alert nor an announcement). The second and third are incorrect procedure for announcements and inadequate disclosure in response to a follow on question. In the case of 2♠ "transfer to either minor" is incorrect procedure. Correct procedure is "alert!" The phrase is inadequate disclosure. If a player uses incorrect procedure, and this causes a problem such that the TD is called, the TD will inform the players of the correct procedure, but will rarely, if ever, issue a PP or adjust the score. If a player gives inadequate disclosure, that is MI, and if this causes a problem such that the TD is called, the TD will determine whether the MI caused damage, and if so will adjust the score but will rarely, if ever, issue a PP.

 

Often players have no clue. Yesterday, after the auction, my LHO informed us we had been misinformed by a failure to alert. Then he said "if you have a problem, you should call the director". I wasn't going to do that, since I had no problem, but I did comment that correct procedure was that he call the director before explaining the failure to alert. I've told this player the same thing at least twice before, but his response was "no, I don't think so". I didn't argue. :blink: :ph34r:

[barmar]

When I select a statement I express what I intend it to mean, not what somebody in some text unknown to me has defined it to mean.

Get yourself to the library and borrow "Alice in Wonderland". You can thank me later.

[campboy]

Get yourself to the library and borrow "Alice in Wonderland". You can thank me later.

That bit is actually in Through the Looking Glass.

[Finch]

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 ♣.

 

 

They would immediately be stopped. They are not playing transfers, and they are not permitted to use the word transfer in explanation, announcement or description on their SC.If you play 1NT - 2♦ as a transfer to hearts except in one rare case [usually a 2♠ rebid] then you announce it as "transfer" in the ACBL, but you alert it in England.

 

 

I do indeed expect you would. If J.Random Minor doesn't understand "transfer to either minor" I would expect that he does not at all understand the verb "transfer" in this context and that he would ask what it means. In which case he of course will receive a full and detailed explanation. However Bluejak seemed to state that a player describing 2♠ as "transfer to either minor" would be immediately stopped (in EBU environment), and so far he hasn't bothered to answer my direct question if that player really would have any such problem.

 

No, Bluejak didn't say that at all. Try actually reading what he posted.

It was suggested that some people might announce their 2S bid as "clubs" when in fact it shows either minor. That would indeed be stopped.

 

However, consider the following scenario:

South: 1NT

West: Pass

North: 2S, alerted

East: Pass

South: 3C

West: Pass

North: Pass

East: What was 2S?

South: A transfer to either minor

East: Pass

 

East, was looking at a weakish 3262 distribution. He passed rather than bid 3D because he thought 'transfer to either minor' meant 'I've got both minors, pick your better one' so expected North to have both minors. After all, the phrase 'transfer to hearts' means 'I"ve got hearts', so 'transfer to either minor' should mean 'I've got both minors'.

 

If I was on an AC, I would rule that East has been misinformed. That seems to be a perfectly valid interpretation of the phrase.

 

FWIW at the table I almost never use the word 'transfer' although I play a lot of them, I just alert (or announce) and say 'that shows spades' or whatever.

[pran]

[...]

East, was looking at a weakish 3262 distribution. He passed rather than bid 3D because he thought 'transfer to either minor' meant 'I've got both minors, pick your better one' so expected North to have both minors. After all, the phrase 'transfer to hearts' means 'I"ve got hearts', so 'transfer to either minor' should mean 'I've got both minors'.

 

If I was on an AC, I would rule that East has been misinformed. That seems to be a perfectly valid interpretation of the phrase.

 

FWIW at the table I almost never use the word 'transfer' although I play a lot of them, I just alert (or announce) and say 'that shows spades' or whatever.

If you spoke Norwegian you would know that the Norwegian translation of "either" is "one of", and frankly I had no idea that "either" in English could be synonymous with "both".

 

A two-suited bid in Norway is to my knowledge always described here as "showing two suits", for instance "spades and a minor" or "both minors", never with statements like "he asks me to select a suit".

 

2♠ in response to 1NT could of course be described as "showing 6 cards in one of the minor suits", but I have yet to know of any misunderstanding from the description "transfer to (a) minor"

[blackshoe]

Either does not mean "both", even in American English. :)

 

If someone described to me his partner's 2♠ response to 1NT as "transfer to (a) minor", I would ask "which one?" as IMO a transfer specifies a particular suit.