[VixTD]

---

Inter-county teams-of-eight, cross IMPs -> VPs

2♦ (alerted) = weak two in either major
4♣, on enquiry explained as "asks me to transfer to the major I've got"
first X = intended to show clubs, interpreted by East as a general invitation to compete
4♥ = showing a spade suit
remaining Xs = penalties

NS play a system in which a 4♣ response to their weak-only multi requests partner to bid the suit below their major, presumably to allow responder to play the hand. EW understood the explanation "asks me to transfer to my major" as "asks me to bid my major".

Result: 5♣X(W)-4, NS +1100

EW called the TD (not me), and asked for a ruling. What do you think?

[campboy]

I would be inclined to rule that E/W acted on the basis of their own misunderstanding. While I suppose the explanation could have been clearer I think it is clear enough (and it is the usual way this agreement is described).

[Oof Arted]

 VixTD, on 2011-November-28, 08:29, said:

---

Inter-county teams-of-eight, cross IMPs -> VPs

2♦ (alerted) = weak two in either major
4♣, on enquiry explained as "asks me to transfer to the major I've got"
first X = intended to show clubs, interpreted by East as a general invitation to compete
4♥ = showing a spade suit
remaining Xs = penalties

NS play a system in which a 4♣ response to their weak-only multi requests partner to bid the suit below their major, presumably to allow responder to play the hand. EW understood the explanation "asks me to transfer to my major" as "asks me to bid my major".

Result: 5♣X(W)-4, NS +1100

EW called the TD (not me), and asked for a ruling. What do you think?

Tough!!! result stands get on with it

[RMB1]

 VixTD, on 2011-November-28, 08:29, said:

EW called the TD (not me), and asked for a ruling. What do you think?

I would need a lot of convincing that the explanation was ambiguous and could likely be misunderstood. This is about the most commom meaning for this auction, with texas (transfer to responder's heart suit) being the only alternative meaning that is usually agreed. Are we sure that both EW misunderstood the explanation in the same way?

I would have to ask some of the players at the event. If they would understand from the explanation that a subsequent 4♥ showed spades then I would rule that EW had been damaged by their own misunderstanding.

[Jeremy69A]

The ruling had two parts

a. the action(s) taken by EW
b. the clarity of the explanation

[aguahombre]

Another case where the explanation says what we are going to do, rather than what the bid shows.

"Support for both majors and a desire to be declarer". Until we stop doing that, there will be problems.

[WellSpyder]

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-28, 09:39, said:

Another case where the explanation says what we are going to do, rather than what the bid shows.

"Support for both majors and a desire to be declarer". Until we stop doing that, there will be problems.

Except that their agreement may not be as you describe. I play this with one partner, and our agreement is exactly as described in the OP. It has never actually come up, so there has been no need to think about what hands we might actually want to make the bid on. Anything over and above the original explanation would be a deduction rather than an agreement.

[aguahombre]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-November-28, 11:23, said:

Except that their agreement may not be as you describe. I play this with one partner, and our agreement is exactly as described in the OP. It has never actually come up, so there has been no need to think about what hands we might actually want to make the bid on. Anything over and above the original explanation would be a deduction rather than an agreement.

Agreed. But the 4C bid showed something or asked some question. The explanation should not include what the explainer is going to do. It should tell what the bid showed or asked.

Giving them the benefit of your deduction, which is probably accurate, seems better than telling them and partner what you are going to do.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-28, 11:40

[WellSpyder]

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-28, 11:34, said:

Agreed. But the 4C bid showed something or asked some question. The explanation should not include what the explainer is going to do. It should tell what the bid showed or asked.

OK, you could say "it asks for my major", I suppose. But since the bid you make to show your major isn't going to be alerted since it is above 3N, it seems only sensible to try to clarify at the same time that the way the major is going to be shown isn't natural. Would you really be arguing that there was no MI if the explanation had simply been that 4♣ asked which major opener had?

[paulg]

Non-British readers may not appreciate that this competition is between teams containing the best four pairs (allegedly) of each county (c.f., ACBL District). The explanation should be sufficient for anyone of this standard to comprehend.

[aguahombre]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-November-28, 11:43, said:

Would you really be arguing that there was no MI if the explanation had simply been that 4♣ asked which major opener had?

A more careful reading of post #6 will answer that.

[mrdct]

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-28, 11:34, said:

The explanation should not include what the explainer is going to do. It should tell what the bid showed or asked.

Not all bids show or ask anything and in this case the explanation of "asks me to transfer to the major I've got" is completely unambiguous and for EW to misinterpret is just shows poor English comprehension on their part.

Moreover, I don't think 4♣ promises or suggests support for both majors at all - the only thing it shows is a desire to play the hand which could have more to do with South's perception of his card play abilities than what he actually holds in his hand.

[bluejak]

 campboy, on 2011-November-28, 08:36, said:

I would be inclined to rule that E/W acted on the basis of their own misunderstanding. While I suppose the explanation could have been clearer I think it is clear enough (and it is the usual way this agreement is described).

Not only is it clear MI I am pretty shocked that you think this is a normal description. When I am told to transfer to a major it means bid the major - that is what transfer means. I play it this way and I might explain a 4♦ response as a transfer to the major since I am going to bid it.

Players have this very unfortunate habit of making very casual explanations because they assume their opponents know what they are talking about. Ok, but it is MI when the opponent does not. If there is no damage - I have not really considered that too much yet - then a PP is on order for N/S to stop them making misleading explanations in future.

 paulg, on 2011-November-28, 12:33, said:

Non-British readers may not appreciate that this competition is between teams containing the best four pairs (allegedly) of each county (c.f., ACBL District). The explanation should be sufficient for anyone of this standard to comprehend.

Completely disagree. It is unnecessarily misleading. As one of the best players in my County I have never had this sequence at my table and I doubt there are more than two pairs in this area who play it. I think too many people reading this have a fair idea what the call means and then to them it is an adequate explanation. But if a player has not heard this before it is confusing.

It is not necessary to confuse opponents with inadequate and misleading explanations so why are people here so willing to give sympathy to people that do?

 mrdct, on 2011-November-28, 14:00, said:

Not all bids show or ask anything and in this case the explanation of "asks me to transfer to the major I've got" is completely unambiguous and for EW to misinterpret is just shows poor English comprehension on their part.

But it doesn't. It asks them to transfer to the suit below the major they have got. I agree it is unambiguous: they are just not playing it the way they have said.



Having looked at the later bidding my first instinct is that it looks awfully silly by E/W, quite probably SEWoG. But if so we should be adjusting for N/S who fully deserve it. Why should they gain from an inadequate explanation?

[aguahombre]

O.k., so I shouldn't have dwelled on whether he might have both majors is implied.

It "shows" that he wants to be the declarer if we play in my major. It "shows" nothing about clubs. What I am going to do about that, if not obvious to the players of this standard (per Paulg), can be asked when I do it since we are not allowed to alert the transfer.

[c_corgi]

If I "transfer to spades" then I bid hearts with the expectation of my partner bidding spades. If partner asks me to do so, that is what I do. As far as it goes, North's explanation seems OK. In fact it is better disclosure than "partner has a hand which wants to declare 4 of my major", because it explains the (automatic) mechanism by which it will happen. It is not "full" disclosure, because it doesnt clarify if partner has options to make opener the declarer in his own major, and is worse if (e.g.) there are options for responder to introduce a suit of his own over 4M. However, while not perfect the infraction seems fairly negligible and is irrelevant to the result, which came from E/W's culpable mistinterpretation and/or SEWoG. Applying PP to N/S in this situation seems like an invitation to secretary birds to claim damage too often, a high price to pay for a laudable attempt to induce better disclosure.

[jallerton]

 bluejak, on 2011-November-28, 14:51, said:

Not only is it clear MI I am pretty shocked that you think this is a normal description. When I am told to transfer to a major it means bid the major - that is what transfer means. I play it this way and I might explain a 4♦ response as a transfer to the major since I am going to bid it.

As you play this 4♣ bid yourself, David, please can you let us know exactly how you describe this 4♣ bid when it comes up?

[campboy]

 bluejak, on 2011-November-28, 14:51, said:

But it doesn't. It asks them to transfer to the suit below the major they have got. I agree it is unambiguous: they are just not playing it the way they have said.

If I bid 2♥, showing spades, in response to 1NT, is that a transfer to spades or a transfer to hearts?

[mrdct]

 bluejak, on 2011-November-28, 14:51, said:

When I am told to transfer to a major it means bid the major - that is what transfer means.

In the EBU a "transfer" is defined as "an artificial bid, showing length in a specific suit (often the next suit up) and usually expecting partner to bid that suit". I like that definition better than yours.

As a general principle, if the prevailing alerting regulations explicitly define a commonly used term it is entirely acceptable to use that term and presume that the opponents will interpret its meaning as per the definition in the regulations. It would only be if my opponents were very inexperienced that I would spell-out what the concept of a transfer is.

The 4♣ bid in this case was clearly described as a bid requiring the 2♦ opener to transfer to his suit and I can't for the life of me understand how it could have been misinterpreted by any player familiar with the concept of a transfer.

I play this convention myself and in the fairly rare circumstance that it comes up, I describe 4♣ as "that tells me to transfer to my major". I don't think my explanation is any better or worse than what was in the OP. If the opponents sought more clarity, I would say something like "he believes the hand should be played in four of my major with him declaring".

 bluejak, on 2011-November-28, 14:51, said:

I play it this way and I might explain a 4♦ response as a transfer to the major since I am going to bid it.

It would be completely incorrect to describe 4♦ as a transfer as by EBU definition a transfer must show length in a specified suit which 4♦ does not. The 4♦ response should be described as "that tells me to bid my major".

[jallerton]

 campboy, on 2011-November-28, 16:53, said:

If I bid 2♥, showing spades, in response to 1NT, is that a transfer to spades or a transfer to hearts?

Perhaps a more relevant analogy would be a 2♣ Stayman response to a 1NT opener. If that is described as "asks partner to transfer to his 4-card major, if any", how would/should this be interpreted?

[mrdct]

 jallerton, on 2011-November-28, 17:48, said:

Perhaps a more relevant analogy would be a 2♣ Stayman response to a 1NT opener. If that is described as "asks partner to transfer to his 4-card major, if any", how would/should this be interpreted?

I would interpret that as the 1NT opener will now bid 2♦ with 4♥, 2♥ with 4♠ and 2♠ onwards with other hands. I'd also like to play against this pair for money!

Exactly how anyone could confuse the concepts of "transfer to" and "bid" is beyond me.