[Trinidad]

Sven has a historic context that is different from the American contributors. Therefore, for Sven the word "transfer" has a slightly different meaning. Maybe I can explain this historic context.

A long time ago, people knew only one way to show a suit: By bidding it. Then the transfer was invented and while the logical mechanism may have been understood by its inventors, it was certainly not understood by the adopters. For one thing different independent inventors had completely different ideas about how a transfer should work.

In America transfers were introduced by Jacoby: 2♦ and 2♥ showed the suit right above the suit bid. (The Walsh relay came later.)

In Scandinavia, Jan Wohlin introduced transfers: 2♦ and 2♥ showed the same suit as Jacoby, or the accompanying minor of the same shape. (And I believe that Wohlin introduced his method before Jacoby did.)

Both methods got the name "transfer". (The Swede Jan Wohlin called his 2♦ and 2♥ bids överföringar, a term that I really only can translate with the word "transfers".) As a result, there are two different ideas behind the word "transfer". They often coincide in practice, but the philosophy is different. The Americans stick with the Bridge World (where the word "World" refers to "Greater USA", similar to "World series") definition: A transfer shows a suit, and it is not the suit bid. For Scandinavians like Sven, a transfer is a command to bid another suit, (with possible specific exceptions). A mechanism that the BW calls a Puppet or a Muppet.

I think that Sven has history on his side (Wohlin was first), but the Americans rule the world (both in the "World series" sense of the word and in the sense of our whole planet).

Therefore, I think that the correct explanation of the 2♠ bid is: "A muppet, showing one or both minors." It's just ironic that the typical clientele of an American bridge club would not understand this explanation (which, then again, makes the explanation incorrect). Once it is explained more and the meaning is clear, they will reply: "Oooh, you mean a TRANSFER to a minor?"

Rik

[blackshoe]

In my experience in this country, at least, most people play the strength range of a transfer to a major in response to a strong NT as 0-25 HCP with at least five cards in the suit. Responder's next call will clarify the hand type and, to some extent, strength range. If there are six cards in the suit, responder may have other calls to show the hand, e.g. Texas if it has game values or is such that responder wants to use RKCB or ERKCB. Likewise, most people who play "bid 2♠ with either minor" do so with a strength of about 0-7 or a bad 8 HCP with at least six cards in the suit, and responder intends to either pass 3♣ or correct to 3♦. IOW, the hand types are very different, and "transfer to <whatever> is not full disclosure. NB: Full disclosure does not change based on what opponents know, probably know, or are assumed to know. If an explanation is inadequate when opponents have no idea what it shows, then it's inadequate even if the opponents invented it.

If you're talking about alerting or announcing, you follow the rules set down by your RA. If you want to change those rules, take it up with them or post in "changing laws". In this country, the rules are "announce" transfer if it's a transfer to a major, otherwise alert". So "transfer to either minor" is incorrect for 2♠, either instead of or in "explanation" of, an alert.

Edit: I missed Rik's post until after I wrote this. I stand by it, while acknowledging his description of the history. 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. I daresay Rik (and Sven) have heard of Jacoby Transfers. IAC, that's a little different from what I was addressing in my previous paragraphs.

BTW, what the heck's a "muppet"? TBW doesn't define it, afaics.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-May-10, 07:09
Reason for edit: additional info and a question

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-10, 06:58, said:

BTW, what the heck's a "muppet"? TBW doesn't define it, afaics.

I think he meant a marionette, am not too hot on American terminology though.

One thing I do notice is that pran's definition of "transfer to a minor" is 6+ clubs or 6+ diamonds. Again, I challenge why I cannot similarly describe, for example, a bid that shows 6+ clubs weak or GF with 5+ diamonds and a 4 card major the same way. Why should major suit transfers be 1 or 2 suited while minor suit transfers are only 1 suited? And how would I know that without your telling me? And if I do not know it, how can this explanation be full disclosure? It goes back to what I said in #63 and (especially) #67, and that noone seems to have addressed since: since there is no standard for what a response showing one minor shows it cannot be correct to offer that on its own as an explanation. It is technically also incorrect to give this as an explanation for a red suit transfer too but at least here there is an accepted standard at club level which means that the explanation is far less likely to result in MI.

Pran, please try to address the 5 points in the previous paragraph and also answer what I think is a fundamental question: why would you give an explanation to an opponent that is based on a convention name when a very short and quick alternative (inter alia "clubs or diamonds, at least a 6 card suit") is available instead?

[Vampyr]

I don't understand Sven's position, since he was adamant that an explanation of a bid, even in response to supplementary questions, did not have to, and indeed must not, indicate what responses and rebids were anticipated. So he should be the first person to believe that the fact that opener will bid some minor and then maybe something else will happen is all completely inappropriate as an explanation, and the player should simply explain what hand type responder is showing.

And anyway "transfer" is a convention name and isn't appropriate anyway.

[barmar]

Maybe the reason some people understand "transfer to either minor" is because they know there's ALSO something called Minor Suit Stayman. The latter is used when responder has both minors and wants opener to choose.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2012-May-10, 09:28, said:

Maybe the reason some people understand "transfer to either minor" is because they know there's ALSO something called Minor Suit Stayman. The latter is used when responder has both minors and wants opener to choose.

I doubt many people play both of these conventions.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-May-10, 09:28, said:

Maybe the reason some people understand "transfer to either minor" is because they know there's ALSO something called Minor Suit Stayman. The latter is used when responder has both minors and wants opener to choose.

That reasoning does not fly. The opponents might well know MSS exists, but they don't know at the time they inquire whether MSS is being used. 2S has, among possible uses:

1---MSS (both minors weak or strong, or just diamonds weak)
2---one minor (unknown which one at this time)
3---one known minor (usually clubs only)
4---one or both minors (opener responds differently than to MSS depending on which minor is preferred).

I know there is something called MSS, but I would not understand "transfer to either minor" and whether they meant "2" or "4", or were really screwed up and describing MSS.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-10, 09:41, said:

I doubt many people play both of these conventions.

That's my point. If you play a convention to ask opener to select the minor, you might identify it as Minor Suit Stayman, with a further explanation of something like "Asks partner to bid his better minor". If you give some other explanation, e.g. "transfer to either minor", it's presumably NOT this convention.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-May-10, 09:46, said:

That's my point. If you play a convention to ask opener to select the minor, you might identify it as Minor Suit Stayman, with a further explanation of something like "Asks partner to bid his better minor". If you give some other explanation, e.g. "transfer to either minor", it's presumably NOT this convention.

MSS does not ask opener to bid his better minor. MSS asks partner to bid a four-card minor (cheapest if both) or bid 2NT without a four card minor. Another good reason not to use names when disclosing, since some people don't really play the convention they are naming.

[pran]

I am only going to add two comments to the above suite of posts:
1: "Transfer" is not considered to be a convention in Norway, it is merely a convenient way to describe a call (usually a bid).
2: "Transfer to a minor" (normally) shows 6+ in either clubs or diamonds and can be any strength in the range 0 - 25 (just like transfers to a major).

And as I have yet to meet any player who understands "transfer" when the matter is transfer to hearts or spades but has a problem with "transfer to a minor" this will conclude my contributions to this thread.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-May-10, 10:17, said:

And as I have yet to meet any player who understands "transfer" when the matter is transfer to hearts or spades but has a problem with "transfer to a minor" this will conclude my contributions to this thread.

I think that's it. These terms are not used in a vacuum, they're used in a context where players are familiar with how bridge is commonly played. Most bridge players are familiar with the various transfer systems that are used over NT, so they don't need you to spell everything out in detail. When someone says "transfer to a minor", you recognize this the way a popular method is frequently described. That's how language works, it's why we can easily leave out details and there's rarely confusion.

Of course, if you want to be absolutely sure there's no confusion, you can give a more detailed description: "He has long clubs or diamonds, usually a weak hand, and commands me to bid 3♣." But most players familiar with the nature of bidding don't need this elaboration, they can infer it from their general knowledge of how transfers and pass/correct bids are used.

This is, of course, a tricky balancing act. If your opponents are total newbies, they're missing lots of general knowledge that you would generally assume players have. They need more things spelled out to them, that's how they learn. But do we really want to require all explanations to be geared toward the lowest common denominator? 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 one really expects that; when I kibbitz championship events, they "explain" a strong bid by simply making a fist or giving the thumbs-up gesture, they don't even bother to write a point count.

I don't think it's desirable to make a single standard that applies in all contexts. Experts would find it tedious if their opponents were always giving explanations aimed toward newbies, while novices would find it confusing if they got expert explanations. You need to know your audience, and tailor to their level of understanding, just as in other areas of discourse. The Laws don't explicitly say this, except in a reference to not having to explain "general bridge knowledge" -- what I think I've pointed out above is that there isn't really any such thing, since players have such wide ranges of experience, both in amounts (how long they've played) and types (typically where they've played -- Polish Club is probably GBK to players in Poland, but not America). A SB might say that this implicitly means that you have to assume the least, but it's just not going to happen.

So you're essentially expected to divine somehow the level of your opponents. If you screw up and overestimate, and as a result mislead them with a terse explanation, you may get ruled against. But this is very unusual, in my experience. First, if they don't understand the explanation, they may ask for more (although sometimes they feel intimidated, or don't want to look dumb). Second, if you're playing in a familiar environment (a regular club game, a sectional tournament) you often know who is who, or at least you know most of the good players -- if you don't know someone, you can assume the worst and give full explanations. And if you're outside your regular turf, you can also assume the worst, although often there are clues like the complexity of the opponents' convention cards, or the nature of the event (if it's a bracketed game, it's reasonable to assume the opponents have comparable experience to yourself).

[mycroft]

"weak or strong with one minor". What's so hard about that? Whether it's a transfer, a marionette, or a canoe, who cares? Explain what the bid *means*, rather than what it *is*, and everything goes away.

There are people who claim (and sometimes announce) 2♠ Transfer when they're actually playing MSS. No, really.
There are people who claim (and frequently announce) 2♠ Transfer when they're actually playing "weak or strong in either minor."
There are people who claim (and frequently announce) 2♠ Transfer when they're actually playing "shows clubs, weak or invitational-if-fit".

One of those is a transfer. None of those (in the ACBL) are an Announcement. None of those need to use the T word anywhere.

I don't have a problem with "transfer to a minor" (though I've never heard it) - except when it turns out that they are playing MSS. But people just use the T word bare, and end up misinforming their opponents. Avoiding it seems beneficial when not mandated or possible, at least in Full Disclosure situations.

(on a side note, this weekend I had 1NT-2NT!. Answer to the question about the Alert was "clubs, to play or GF." Oddly enough, I didn't need to use the T word, either).

[Trinidad]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-May-10, 08:04, said:

I think he meant a marionette.

Yes, I did. I wasn't fully awake yet, since it was only 1:30 PM.

Rik

[bluejak]

Please do not be silly. Players do things like this all the time and no-one worries.

But if a player misinforms his opponents then he will be stopped. If a player says "2♠ is a transfer" and it turns out to be a way of signing off in either minor he has misinformed his opponent. We do not encourage players to misinform opponents.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-10, 18:36, said:

Please do not be silly. Players do things like this all the time and no-one worries.

But if a player misinforms his opponents then he will be stopped. If a player says "2♠ is a transfer" and it turns out to be a way of signing off in either minor he has misinformed his opponent. We do not encourage players to misinform opponents.

Does this imply that also if a player says "2♦ (or 2♥) is a transfer" and it turns out to be a way of signing off in hearts (or spades) he has misinformed his opponent?

If not I think you had better provide a precise definition on what (in your opinion) makes a bid a "transfer".

If my memory serves me right "transfer" bids (2♦ and 2♥) were originally introduced as a way of signing off without having the strong 1NT opening hand becoming exposed as dummy. Then came the logical extension with 2♠ as a way of signing off in clubs, but with the possibility for the responder to correct to a signoff in diamonds.

[PeterAlan]

 pran, on 2012-April-24, 15:17, said:

The prime purpose of a transfer call seems for me to be having the caller become dummy.

 pran, on 2012-May-11, 01:37, said:

If my memory serves me right "transfer" bids (2♦ and 2♥) were originally introduced as a way of signing off without having the strong 1NT opening hand becoming exposed as dummy.

I'm no expert in the history of transfers, in the theory of bidding, or in the wider use of transfers in modern methods, but you've said this twice now and it doesn't agree with my understanding.

Yes, it may be helpful to right-side a contract, but surely the principal purpose of a simple transfer over a 1NT opening is to enable the responder to describe her hand more fully by getting opener, who has pretty much fully described his hand by the 1NT bid, to keep the auction open by making responder's first bid for her, thus enabling her to make a second bid - possibly Pass, possibly something else - to describe her hand further.

The view that it's appropriate to restrict the use of the term "transfer" to a bid that shows one suit only would seem to fit well with this.

[gordontd]

 pran, on 2012-May-11, 01:37, said:

If my memory serves me right "transfer" bids (2♦ and 2♥) were originally introduced as a way of signing off without having the strong 1NT opening hand becoming exposed as dummy. Then came the logical extension with 2♠ as a way of signing off in clubs, but with the possibility for the responder to correct to a signoff in diamonds.

One of the uses for a Stayman 2♣ response was originally as a way of signing off in clubs by way of a 3♣ rebid. Do you think that makes it a transfer to clubs, Sven?

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2012-May-11, 05:15, said:

One of the uses for a Stayman 2♣ response was originally as a way of signing off in clubs by way of a 3♣ rebid. Do you think that makes it a transfer to clubs, Sven?

To satisfy a Secretary Bird - YES, that could be part of the description of Stayman.

But as my view is that the explanation of a call shall not include explanations of the possible answers to this call (i.e. future calls) the "correct" explanation of the 2♣ bid is that "It asks for any 4 card major with opener".

If responder then rebids 3♣ the "correct" explanation is that "It is a signoff in clubs".

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2012-May-10, 11:47, said:

This is, of course, a tricky balancing act. If your opponents are total newbies, they're missing lots of general knowledge that you would generally assume players have. They need more things spelled out to them, that's how they learn. But do we really want to require all explanations to be geared toward the lowest common denominator? In a national or world championship, should the players be expected to give all explanations in a way that would be understandable by novices?

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

[aguahombre]

Justice for using a name when trying to explain what a bid means.