Puppets and Transfers and Relays, Oh My!

[Trinidad]

I do take some small exception to "the Americans rule the world" in this case. Wohlin may have been first, but so what? Even today, I never heard of him or his överföringar until just now.

That's because you are American. (Barmar seems to have heard of Wohlin transfers.)

I daresay Rik (and Sven) have heard of Jacoby Transfers.

QED, The Americans rule the world. ;)

 

Rik

[jallerton]

I kind of agree with you. But it seems that the answer to your question is yes. I will tell you a true story from the 2011 Bermuda Bowl in Veldhoven, The Netherlands. I was kibitzing in the round robin of the Bermuda Bowl in Veldhoven and I witnessed the following at the table. I had kibitzed quite a lot before, but I have never felt it so hard to remain unnoticed and sit still in my chair: I almost fell out of it.

 

The auction started: 1NT-Pass-2♠. The 2♠ was alerted and then the following discussion took place between the players on my side of the screen (Remember: not Aunt Millie's bridge club. Bermuda Bowl in Veldhoven.):

 

"What does that mean?"

 

- "Minor Suit Stayman"

 

"Minor Suit Stayman?"

 

- "Yeah, Minor Suit Stayman. You know, he is asking for my holdings in the minors."

 

"You mean majors, of course."

 

- "No, it's Minor Suit Stayman. He is asking for my holding in the minors."

 

"He is asking for your holding in the minors?"

 

- "Yes, he is."

 

"Does he have a major?"

 

- "Most likely not, he is not interested in them."

 

"Then it is nonsense to call it Stayman. Stayman asks for majors, not for minors. You should not be allowed to explain it as Stayman. That's misleading. If it asks for minors, then don't call it Stayman."

 

The explainer shrugged his shoulders, but I guess he was close to turning to me and ask: "Could you please explain to him what Minor Suit Stayman is?"

 

Rik

 

In the Bermuda Bowl, all explanations must be in writing. It must have taken a while to write all of this out!

[Trinidad]

In the Bermuda Bowl, all explanations must be in writing. It must have taken a while to write all of this out!

As you know, what must be is not always what is. And it is not up to a kibitzer to point out what must be.

 

I think actually that the first step was that the asker pointed at 2♠ and the explainer wrote down: "MSS", and after after an oral question he wrote out: "Minor Suit Stayman". After that, the discussion started and the paper was pushed away. Thereby, the asker was considerably louder than the explainer.

 

Rik

[barmar]

That's because you are American. (Barmar seems to have heard of Wohlin transfers.)

Is that what they're called? When I was teaching them to a friend, I called them Wohlman transfers, but my memory was hazy. Do you have an actual reference? I think I learned the convention from an ACBL Bulletin article in the late 90's, but haven't been able to find anything about it since then.

[Trinidad]

Is that what they're called? When I was teaching them to a friend, I called them Wohlman transfers, but my memory was hazy. Do you have an actual reference? I think I learned the convention from an ACBL Bulletin article in the late 90's, but haven't been able to find anything about it since then.

I don't have a reference, but as far as I know, the original was written up in the Swedish bridge magazine Bridgetidningen. Maybe they can help you if you really want to find a reference.

 

This is the WBF link to Jan Wohlin and the Encyclopedia of Bridge (I have the 5th edition) also has a few lines on him.

 

Bridgeguys also has something about Efos, the system that he helped to develop.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Until I first played in America, I had very little idea of what "Minor Suit Stayman" meant. I'd never encountered it in England, and I still haven't, except from overseas visitors.

 

If I'd had to guess, I wouldn't have assumed the actual meaning. If this convention were actually an analog of Stayman, it would imply one or two four-card minors, rather than promising both.

 

In a national or world championship, should the players be expected to give all explanations in a way that would be understandable by novices?

No, but when playing against foreigners they should be expected to give all explanations in a way that would be understandable by foreigners.

 

The way to avoid this sort of problem is to describe what the convention shows. How long does it take to write "weak, one minor", or "minors" or "minors/weak D"?

[bluejak]

I was taught MSS by my American American partner.

[aguahombre]

I was taught MSS by my American American partner.

So, you must understand how difficult it is to communicate in different languages.

[fromageGB]

A SB might say that this implicitly means that you have to assume the least, but it's just not going to happen.

 

 

To satisfy a Secretary Bird -

 

Thank you, Pran. I thought it meant "Sad Bastard".

[phil_20686]

 

If I'd had to guess, I wouldn't have assumed the actual meaning. If this convention were actually an analog of Stayman, it would imply one or two four-card minors, rather than promising both.

 

 

I think its more the case that it denies the ability to normal stayman, so it never has a 4cM. Most people don't bother with 3334, so either you have both minors or you are 5332 with slammish strength. Its common to use it to look for nine card minor fits for slam when you only have one minor.

[dburn]

Permit me, as an old Equity draftsman, to make a suggestion.

 

If the word "transfer" bears any relation as a bridge term to its more general meaning, one would say that there must be something being transferred. In the simple cases of 1NT-2♦ and 1NT-2♥ showing respectively 5+ hearts and 5+ spades, what is (usually) being transferred is the declarership of the hand (from the player actually holding the long suit to his partner). I strongly suspect that this is why the originators of the convention in the United States and in Sweden chose the words that they chose; the use of "retransfers" to re-place the declarership in the hand of the opening bidder after he has "broken the transfer" is further evidence for the notion.

 

If this is admitted, then the words "transfer to either minor" make no sense regardless of the meaning with which "either" is imbued, and should not be used as part of full disclosure. One hopes that in time those jurisdictions using announcements will take the view that if 1NT-2♠ shows 5+ clubs and 1NT-2NT shows 5+ diamonds, this may be revealed by the use of an announcement such as "clubs" or "diamonds" (I do not think the time has yet come when a transfer to a 4+-card suit can be disclosed by means of an announcement alone).

 

Meanwhile, those who use 2♠ or 2NT to show a weak hand with one minor or some other stronger hand type should alert and explain what they are doing in terms that do not involve the word "transfer". This is not difficult.

 

In my bright college days, we employed these terms:

 

Transfer A call that showed length (usually 5+ cards) in a suit and commanded partner to bid that suit; for example 1NT-4♦ usually showing a hand that wanted partner to play 4♥ (but might be followed by slam tries in hearts).

 

Puppet A call that commanded partner to make a particular bid, but did not necessarily relate to the denomination of that bid; for example 1NT-2NT showing (perhaps inter alia) a weak hand wishing to sign off in a minor.

 

Request A "breakable transfer" that showed length (usually 5+ cards) in a suit, but allowed partner to do other than bid that suit at his next turn to call; for example 1NT-2♦ showing 5+ hearts and the pious but often unfulfilled hope that partner would not do anything stupid just because he had four hearts.

 

Muppet A "breakable puppet"; for example a 2NT response to a double of a weak two bid that expected a "normal" doubler to bid 3♣ but allowed an "abnormal" doubler to show strength (or amnesia) by making some other bid.

 

Of course, mere definition could not overcome imbecility. I still recall a 2-1 fit reached after 1NT-2NT (puppet to 3♣) - 3♦, which opener thought "must" show the six-card club suit that he actually held, but responder thought "must" show a desire to break the puppet on the basis of an independent diamond suit (with or without the values normally associated with an opening bid of 1NT, but probably without, for the opener was a card-carrying member of the Trick Cyclists' Union).

[Vampyr]

I was taught MSS by my American American partner.

 

What does "American American" mean?

[Trinidad]

What does "American American" mean?

Thinking of the recent discussion about whether Canadians where Americans, it probably means: "a citizen and inhabitant of the United States of America".

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Thinking of the recent discussion about whether Canadians where Americans, it probably means: "a citizen and inhabitant of the United States of America".

So an American American American is a native American indian?

[Trinidad]

So an American American American is a native American indian?

Either that, or a direct descendant of Amerigo Vespucci, that is also a US citizen and inhabitant.

 

Rik

[Finch]

What does "American American" mean?

 

I read this as the partner I play with in America, who happens to be American.

[bluejak]

What does "American American" mean?

For many years I had two regular partners in ACBL Nationals, an American female from the DC area, and an Englishman who lived in New York. So my two partners were my American American partner and my English American partner. My English American partner has now been transferred back to Brighton UK, and the last couple of years I have taken a partner with me.

 

I read this as the partner I play with in America, who happens to be American.

Exactly.

[fromageGB]

So an American American American is a native American indian?

I originally interpreted "American American partner" as a partner originating from America playing our agreed system which was Standard American, in the same way that with my precision partner I would be playing precision (if I ever did).

 

So if Bluejak played Standard American with the native American indian it would be his American American American American partner.

[barmar]

Silly me, I thought it was just a typo or thinko.

[bluejak]

I originally interpreted "American American partner" as a partner originating from America playing our agreed system which was Standard American, in the same way that with my precision partner I would be playing precision (if I ever did).

 

So if Bluejak played Standard American with the native American Indian it would be his American American American American partner.

Well, no: she [not it] would be my American American American Standard American partner.

 

In fact I had an American American 2/1 partner and an American English Acol partner.

[Trinidad]

Well, no: she [not it] would be my American American American Standard American partner.

Maybe "it" in FromageGB's post referred to the phrase "his American... partner", rather than to the person (the woman who actually was your partner)?

 

In that case the pronoun at the start of the sentence should definitely be "it" rather than "she". It¹ would be correct in English English as well as American English and even American American English.

 

Got it²?

 

;)

 

Rik

 

¹ The use of the pronoun "it" when it refers to the phrase rather the person

² The whole discussion in this post