[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-April-24, 09:05, said:

 swanway, on 2012-April-21, 04:11, said:

English Bridge Union

Can you please settle a discussion we are having in our club. We play transfers after a 1NT
opening. So 2♦means 'HEARTS' announced. 2♥ means 'Spades' announced.
We are having problems with 2♠which asks partner to bid 3C. When they do that 3C can
changed to 3D. Is this particular transfer announced or alerted?

Note that if you play a 2♠ response as asking for 3♣ but might be a signoff in either minor that is not a transfer and should not be described as such either on the SC or in answer to a question. A transfer shows a particular suit.

What is wrong with 2♠ being "transfer to either minor"?

I know players having the agreement that opener is expected to bid 3♣ after which either PASS or correct can be expected.
I also know players responding 2NT if their diamond suit is better than their club suit (or was it at least as good as?) and 3♣ otherwise.

But IMHO 2♠ is still a genuine transfer bid.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2012-April-24, 09:13, said:

What is wrong with 2♠ being "transfer to either minor"?

I know players having the agreement that opener is expected to bid 3♣ after which either PASS or correct can be expected.
I also know players responding 2NT if their diamond suit is better than their club suit (or was it at least as good as?) and 3♣ otherwise.

But IMHO 2♠ is still a genuine transfer bid.

I disagree.

Quote

ACBL alert definitions: Transfer: A bid of a suit to show another specific suit (e.g., a diamond bid showing hearts).

There is a similar definition in the Bridge World Glossary. So if responder could have either minor, 3♠ is not a transfer. It's a relay or perhaps a puppet, depending on what opener is allowed to do.

[mgoetze]

Of course it is very convenient for Sven to be a bit sloppy about such explanations, because he is protected by law from insidious questions the opponents may ask about the followups to try and ascertain the true meaning of the bid.

[pran]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-24, 13:01, said:

Of course it is very convenient for Sven to be a bit sloppy about such explanations, because he is protected by law from insidious questions the opponents may ask about the followups to try and ascertain the true meaning of the bid.

Maybe I should prepare myself to start educating all those players I meet who explains 2♠ after 1NT as "transfer to a minor suit", but I don't think I shall care.

I am quite happy with "transfer to a minor" (or words to similar effect) as an explanation, it is widely used and even more videly understood without any problem.

Considering possible definitions of "transfer" and "relay" I believe "relay" here in Norway is taken to mean a bid that asks about further information from partner without essentially revealing anything about the caller's hand while "transfer" simply means a bid that reveals something about the caller's hand without asking any information about his partner's hand. The prime purpose of a transfer call seems for me to be having the caller become dummy.

Feel free to argue about these attempts for a definition, again i shall not care, and specifically I shall not enter any further comment on this discussion which I consider rather fruitless.

[Zelandakh]

 pran, on 2012-April-24, 15:17, said:

Maybe I should prepare myself to start educating all those players I meet who explains 2♠ after 1NT as "transfer to a minor suit", but I don't think I shall care.

I am quite happy with "transfer to a minor" (or words to similar effect) as an explanation, it is widely used and even more videly understood without any problem.

Considering possible definitions of "transfer" and "relay" I believe "relay" here in Norway is taken to mean a bid that asks about further information from partner without essentially revealing anything about the caller's hand while "transfer" simply means a bid that reveals something about the caller's hand without asking any information about his partner's hand. The prime purpose of a transfer call seems for me to be having the caller become dummy.

Feel free to argue about these attempts for a definition, again i shall not care, and specifically I shall not enter any further comment on this discussion which I consider rather fruitless.

Let's take the auction 1NT - 2♠. Pair A plays this as a weak take-out in either minor. Pair B plays this as a weak take-out in either minor or a GF hand with clubs and a major. Pair C plays it as a weak take-out in clubs or GF with diamonds. Pair D plays it as a weak take-out in diamonds or GF with clubs. All 4 pairs describe their 2♠ bid as "transfer to either minor". Does this seem ok to you?

As for Norwegian terminology I am interested how you would define some bids that are a part of my system. After a Precision-style 2♣ opening I play 2♦ as 4+ hearts and 2♥ as 4+ spades. The responses show the length that Opener has in the suit, so after 2♣ - 2♥: 2♠ shows 0-2 spades, 2NT is 3 and min, 3♣ is 3 and max, 3♦ is 4 and min, 3♠ is 4 and max. So the bid is both showing a suit and asking something about partner's hand at the same time. Personally I just describe it as something like "either a weak hand with hearts or 4+ hearts and invitational or better". Similarly I would describe each of the 2♠ bids used by Pairs A-D by what the bids actually show without trying to use some terminology that might be misinterpreted. Pair A: "a weak hand with either 6+ clubs or 6+ diamonds that thinks 3 of the minor will play better than 1NT".

This is actually what I do not understand in all of these FD discussions - why can we not simply describe what a bid shows? Stayman: "a weak hand with 3+ hearts, 3+ spades and 4+ diamonds; or any hand with a 4 card major and game interest (including 5-4 majors but not 5-5); or a hand interested in a minor suit slam." Add or remove as appropriate - the point is that a bid usually shows something, even if it is a relay.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-April-25, 05:23, said:

This is actually what I do not understand in all of these FD discussions - why can we not simply describe what a bid shows? Stayman: "a weak hand with 3+ hearts, 3+ spades and 4+ diamonds; or any hand with a 4 card major and game interest (including 5-4 majors but not 5-5); or a hand interested in a minor suit slam." Add or remove as appropriate - the point is that a bid usually shows something, even if it is a relay.

Because that's not how most players think about such conventions. When you learn Stayman, you learn it as a way to ask about opener's hand, NOT a way to show a particular type of hand. What you might hold when you make the bid is implicit in the structure of the convention.

So when we describe a bid, we naturally describe it in the way we think of it. If a bid explicitly shows something, we describe that; but if it asks, we don't do all the calculations to figure out what kinds of hands the bidder might have to ask that question.

[mgoetze]

 pran, on 2012-April-24, 15:17, said:

Considering possible definitions of "transfer" and "relay"

What a weird way to approach the question. Why aren't you, for instance, considering any definition of "puppet"?

[barmar]

 mgoetze, on 2012-April-25, 13:41, said:

What a weird way to approach the question. Why aren't you, for instance, considering any definition of "puppet"?

Probably because the majority of bridge players never use the term, except maybe as part of a convention named "Puppet Stayman" (which, due to the evolution of the convention, does not actually involve a puppet any more).

[blackshoe]

It seems to me the problem here is that there are inconsistent definitions of some of these terms out there. The ACBL defines things one way, the Norwegian Bridge Authority another, The Bridge World a third, other NBOs may have other ideas. So if we're going to discuss what kind of bid this 2♠ is, the first thing we need to do is agree which definitions we're going to use. Sven has already opted out of the discussion, so presumably he won't agree to any definitions other than his own. As for the rest of us, what do we want to do?

I suppose I should point out that the OP specified the EBU, so perhaps we should use EBU definitions. Can someone list the EBU's definitions of relay, puppet, transfer, and marionette? (These are the four terms that I believe may be germane, although I rarely hear or see the last one outside the confines of The Bridge World.

This discussion has taken us beyond a simple ruling, so I'm going to move it to the "Laws and Rulings" forum.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-27, 15:00, said:

I suppose I should point out that the OP specified the EBU, so perhaps we should use EBU definitions. Can someone list the EBU's definitions of relay, puppet, transfer, and marionette? (These are the four terms that I believe may be germane, although I rarely hear or see the last one outside the confines of The Bridge World.

Orange Book glossary:

Quote

Transfer bid:
An artificial bid, showing length in a specific suit (often the next suit up) and usually expecting partner to bid that suit.

Puppet bid:
An artificial bid, requesting partner to bid the next denomination up, but not necessarily showing that suit.

Relay bid:
A response made to allow partner to bid again and indicating nothing about the denomination bid.

"marionette" does not occur in the Orange Book (and is unheard of except for those who read Bridge World definitions).

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2012-April-27, 15:51, said:

"marionette" does not occur in the Orange Book (and is unheard of except for those who read Bridge World definitions).

<chuckle> Fair enough!

By the definitions posted, it seems 2♠ here is not a transfer (it doesn't show length in a specific suit) and not puppet (it doesn't ask partner to bid 2NT). It seems to be a relay.

Okay, if we agree on that, now what?

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-27, 15:00, said:

This discussion has taken us beyond a simple ruling, so I'm going to move it to the "Laws and Rulings" forum.

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!

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-27, 15:00, said:

I suppose I should point out that the OP specified the EBU, so perhaps we should use EBU definitions. Can someone list the EBU's definitions of relay, puppet, transfer, and marionette? (These are the four terms that I believe may be germane, although I rarely hear or see the last one outside the confines of The Bridge World.

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.

EBU Orange Book said:

Transfer bid: An artificial bid, showing length in a specific suit (often the next suit up) and usually expecting partner to bid that suit.

Puppet bid: An artificial bid, requesting partner to bid the next denomination up, but not necessarily showing that suit.

Relay bid: A response made to allow partner to bid again and indicating nothing about the denomination bid.

[gnasher]

As I understand it, the definitions in the Orange Book tell us what these terms mean when they are used in the Orange Book. They don't define the terminology to use when describing a method at the table.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-27, 16:59, said:

As I understand it, the definitions in the Orange Book tell us what these terms mean when they are used in the Orange Book. They don't define the terminology to use when describing a method at the table.

I was addressing the question "what kind of bid is it?" It is certainly true that just answering that is not full disclosure.

[blackshoe]

 jallerton, on 2012-April-27, 16:06, said:

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!

Everything I do is wrong.

I may move that other thread, too. Or split it.

Okay. I split this thread, leaving the discussion of the meanings of "transfer" etcetera here in "Laws and Rulings", and I moved the original question and the first few replies (which were actually directed at that question rather than these meanings) back to "Simple Rulings".

As for the other thread, 423 replies and 22 pages is a lot to go through. Also, it seems the discussions of various aspects are quite intertwined. I'll think about it some more, but at the moment I'm not inclined to try to sort the "Simple Rulings" part out from the rest. So I should probably move it to "Laws and Rulings". 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.

[RMB1]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-27, 16:59, said:

As I understand it, the definitions in the Orange Book tell us what these terms mean when they are used in the Orange Book. They don't define the terminology to use when describing a method at the table.

The status of the Orange Book Glossary was much discussed before it ended up at the back. I think gnasher has it right: the definitionx are only necessarily internal to the Orange Book. There are definitions in Section 4 Convention Cards which are meanings for descriptions appearing on convention cards, and presumably also constitute adequate disclosure in response to questons.

Transfer/Puppet are not defined there and so I don't think a player is expected to use/understand these words as they are defined in the glossary.

In particular "puppet" may not be adequate disclosure at all; and the description "transfer to a minor" is not necessarily meaningless, even though it has no meaning according to the glossary definition.

[nige1]

IMO...

• If Sven's 2♠ bid shows a single suit (e.g. ♣) then it is a transfer.
• If Sven's partner must always respond 3♣ then 2♠ is a puppet.
• If Sven's 2♠ shows either minor then it is a multi, especially if his partner may make paradox responses.

Some of these terms are defined in regulations like the Orange book and Eric Kokish's on-line Guide to completion of the WBF convention card and supplementary sheets. Rather than encourage elegant local variants, I think the WBFLC should include definitions of common terms in the law-book. This would promote more concise and accurate disclosure.

[campboy]

Certainly there is no need to use the word "transfer" (or "Vietnamese water puppet" or whatever) in your explanation, but if you choose to do so then surely your opponent is entitled to expect the meaning defined in the OB. That is admittedly not likely to be an issue with the explanation "transfer to either minor", which doesn't actually make sense. I have occasionally had "transfer to clubs" as an explanation when there were in fact other possibilities without length in clubs, though, and that is MI.

[mycroft]

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).

Then it turns out they have diamonds...but we only find out about that after it goes 1NT-2♠; 3♣-3♦, or 1NT-2♠; 2NT-3♦; and sometimes only after it goes 1NT-2♠; 3♣-3♦; PASS. Which is a nice game, if you want to stop the opponents from competing in clubs, or doubling 3♣ for "penalty or lead-direction".

And they truly don't realize a) that there's a problem, and b) that "transfer" promises a suit. They just do what they were (mis-)taught by their teacher (who also doesn't understand any of this).

I agree "transfer to either minor" would get the point across, but really, how about "one minor, weak or strong" or "clubs, weak or strong, or weak diamonds" or whatever it actually is? Note that there are those in this same area who claim that 1NT-2♠ "minor suit stayman" is a "transfer" - sometimes "transfer to either minor" - when in fact what they mean is "both minors" or "looking for a 4-card minor" or...

Transfer is a bad word to misuse, and it is worth it, even if one looks like an SB, to challenge at all points the dilution of it. Others will differ with my judgement, of course.

[blackshoe]

I agree with you 100%. OTOH, I'm tired of being made to look like the bad guy who "calls the TD all the time". Today my (pretty experienced) RHO, dealer, put a pass card on the table, picked it up, I said "wait a minute" and he and his partner both insisted that "it's okay, he picked it right back up". I thought about it for a bit, but I could see that calling the TD wasn't going to get me anything but pissed off opponents, so I said "screw it, make your bid". LHO thanked me! Another round, I revoked, corrected it, and RHO, dummy(!) started giving a ruling! I was pretty sure LHO knew his rights, so I just asked RHO why he, dummy, was participating in the play. I got a blank look. Call the TD? What the Hell for? She's not going to do anything.