[mamos]

Reluctant as I am to debate rulings and appeals here I do feel that I am moved to comment.

Firstly comments about playing ability - I don't know who the EW pair were or the county they came from - I was a TD at this event but not directly involved in the ruling or in managing the group in which this case occurred. The teams in this event vary enormously in skill and experience. Some English counties can field teams which comprise mostly internationals and very experienced tournament players. Other counties have only a few hundred members and their teams are made up of players who mostly play club and local events. I think it extremely likely that the EW had NOT come across this method before.

The problem seems to me to revolve around the problem of the way language is used in bridge and everyday language. If I ask you to "transfer to a bus" I expect you to get on the bus. A transfer bid is a specialised use of the language used in bridge - A transfer bid asks the responder to bid the suit above. A very clear response would have been - "I am asked to show my major by making a transfer bid" or indeed even better "I am asked to bid the suit below my major" - these responses seem to me much easier to understand than the explanation given.

The point is that the explanation was misunderstood - the EW pair did not end up knowing what NS were doing. This in my opinion is NS's problem not EW's. I believe that EW were not properly informed and I am a little surprised by the consensus that the explanation was adequate. EW's bidding may be unhinged, but no one can think East would have bid 4♠ if he or she had known that this was North's suit.

Mike Amos

[campboy]

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'd interpret it as a leading question. Who says it's Stayman?

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-November-28, 15:51, said:

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?

"4♣ asks partner to bid the suit below the one she holds."

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?

It is a transfer to spades, and partner bids spades.

Totally different from this 4♣ which is a transfer [ok, technically a puppet, but how many players really appreciate the difference] to a different suit from the one held.

mrdct, on 2011-November-28, 17:00, said:

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.

I agree with that definition. If a player is asked to "transfer to his suit" that means he bids his suit, as the EBU definition says, which is not what this bid means.

mrdct, on 2011-November-28, 17:00, said:

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.

It clearly was not. It asked him to transfer to his suit which means bid his suit. That is completely clear.

mrdct, on 2011-November-28, 17:00, said:

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".

Your description is totally misleading to anyone not used to it: transferring to your major means bidding it.

mrdct, on 2011-November-28, 17:00, said:

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".

At least I would not be misleading my opponents by an over-casual and clearly ambiguous definition.

[MickyB]

While "asks me to bid the suit below my major" is a strictly superior explanation, the one given at the table was correct, and it seems harsh to rule against a pair because their opposition don't understand English. If someone told me I was receiving a PP for giving that explanation I would think I was on Candid Camera.

"4♣ asks me to transfer to my major" clearly does not mean the same as "4♣ asks me to bid my major". I have been asked to transfer, how is bidding my own suit a transfer?

"4♦ is a transfer to my major" must ask me to bid my major - there is no other logical meaning - but that does not make the use of the word "transfer" correct. Indeed, this could similarly be misunderstood as a transfer to responder's own heart suit if you are not careful with your phrasing.

I agree with Mamos that the quality of the field in this event is very wide-ranging [this board is evidence of that].

[blackshoe]

From the Bridge World Glossary:

Quote

Marionette
(1) (noun) a transfer (meaning 2), after which partner will usually make the cheapest bid but is permitted to bid higher with special hands. (Compare with puppet.)

Puppet
(1) (noun) transfer (meaning 2) [= a call that asks partner to make a certain call regardless of his holding];

Relay
(1) (noun) an artificial call, very often the cheapest bid, possibly nondescriptive or at most partially descriptive, that asks or allows partner to offer a description.

Transfer
(1) (noun) a bid that shows length in a different suit;
(2) (noun) a call that asks partner to make a certain call regardless of his holding; [In this usage, also called Puppet.]

IMO, the 4♣ bid in this thread is a relay, not a puppet, because it asks partner to make a call based on his holding, and it is at best partially descriptive of the bidder's (South's) holding.

When I read the OP, I understood that North was saying that South wanted North to make a transfer bid into his (North's) suit. That said, I agree with Mike Amos — the explanation could well mislead, and is therefore not proper disclosure. Seems to me "asks me to bid the suit below my major" is the best description.

The EBU definition of "transfer" is a bit more specific, but I don't think that matters.

There was MI; EW were damaged. Yes, they had a bidding misunderstanding, but I don't think it rises to the level of SEWoG, particularly if the players were less than experts, as one poster suggested might have been the case. So I would adjust the score under Law 21B3, it being too late for any change of call after the play was concluded. Adjusted result 4♠ (NS) +1, +450 NS, -450 EW. It doesn't look to me like a weighted score is appropriate. No PP, but I would suggest to NS the above wording for their explanations in future.

[bluejak]

Tonight I gave my regular partner the sequence

---

and told he that 4♣ was asked, and described as "asking me to transfer into my major". I then asked her what 4♥ meant.

"Hearts" she said, "he asked to transfer into his major so he did."

I suggested that 4♥ might show spades, as she and I play.

"Don't be ridiculous," she said, "he was asked to transfer into his major."

I think the people who support a pair who cannot be bothered to give an adequate explanation of their methods should reconsider their position.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-28, 19:59, said:

Totally different from this 4♣ which is a transfer [ok, technically a puppet, but how many players really appreciate the difference] to a different suit from the one held.

Evidently you have transfer/puppet confusion also. A puppet requires partner to make a specific bid (usually the next suit up) irrespective of what he has in his hand; whereas a transfer shows length in a specific suit (usually the next one up). This 4♣ is neither a transfer nor a puppet; it is a conventional bid asking that partner reveal which major he holds by transfering to it. You seem to think that "asks me to transfer to my major" means the same thing as "asks me to bid my major".

Whilst I fully agree that it is the duty of person giving an explanation to make sure that his explanation has been understood, the vernacular of bridge includes a number of terms for which it is reasonable to expect that your opponents will understand the universally accepted meaning. For example, "pre-emptive", "stopper", "control", "points", "shortage", "majors", "minors", and (dare I say) "transfer". Some of these terms, e.g. "transfer", are also explicitly defined in laws and regulations. If I come across an opponent who may not know what "pre-emptive" means, am I meant to protect myself and make sure that he understands what I meant by the term "pre-emptive"? If I'm playing against a pair straight out of the beginners' class, yes I will say something like "he has 6 or 7, perhaps even 8, bananas and less than X points" but I wouldn't dream of doing so against a pair playing in a representative even if some of the representatives are from relatively minor regions. I still can't see how anyone but the most inexperienced player could have been mislead by the explanation of 4♣ in the OP, but evidently east-west here did misinterpret it so the only conclusion I could reach is that east-west are complete noobs.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-November-29, 00:52, said:

Evidently you have transfer/puppet confusion also. A puppet requires partner to make a specific bid (usually the next suit up) irrespective of what he has in his hand; whereas a transfer shows length in a specific suit (usually the next one up). This 4♣ is neither a transfer nor a puppet; it is a conventional bid asking that partner reveal which major he holds by transfering to it. You seem to think that "asks me to transfer to my major" means the same thing as "asks me to bid my major".

You have completely missed the point. It does not matter one iota what I think or believe: when you explain an agreement you are meant to explain it fully and unambiguously. Whatever mrdct and bluejak think transfer means, the majority of people if told a bid transfers to opener's major assume that means opener will bid the major. Therefore N/S misinformed E/W.

[gordontd]

While I was at the event, one of the players involved told me about this ruling. Because I was there as a player and not a TD (and it was early in the morning!) I didn't want to get drawn in to a discussion about it, but when she said "it asks me to transfer to my major" I assumed that when she bid hearts she had hearts. I must say I've never before encountered this system being described in this way, and I don't think it was adequate disclosure. I would probably have ruled the same way as the TD at the table, and been surprised that the AC overturned it, but I wasn't there so perhaps the players presented additional information that led the AC to believe the explanation was adequate.

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy for EW to keep their bad result.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-29, 00:50, said:

Tonight I gave my regular partner the sequence

---

and told he that 4♣ was asked, and described as "asking me to transfer into my major". I then asked her what 4♥ meant.

It might have been a good idea to conduct your survey using the actual explanation given in the OP of "asks me to transfer to the major I've got" rather than "asking me to transfer into my major". If anyone is going to misinterpret what is meant by "transfer" in these explantions, I think the latter is probably a little bit more likley to be misinterpreted as the construction looks more like opener is expected to do the definitive action.

bluejak, on 2011-November-29, 02:25, said:

Whatever mrdct and bluejak think transfer means, the majority of people if told a bid transfers to opener's major assume that means opener will bid the major.

I agree that what mrdct and bluejak think "transfer" means matters little which is why we turn to the EBU defintion of what "transfer" means for guidance. "Bid your major" means just that, "transfer to your major" means something entirely different. It's also interesting to note that the Orange Book overtly cautions people that use of the term "puppet" could be open to misinterpretation so advises that puppets be explained in more detail, but makes no such warning in relation to the term "transfer" no doubt as it is unforseable that anyone would not understand what a transfer is.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2011-November-29, 03:48, said:

-"Bid your major" means just that, "transfer to your major" means something entirely different.

Does it? If asked what is the meaning of my 2NT response to a 1NT opening, I would say "transfer to diamonds". I think that answer would be perfectly clear that I am showing diamonds - and it doesn't necessarily mean "bid diamonds".

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2011-November-29, 02:25, said:

Whatever mrdct and bluejak think transfer means, the majority of people if told a bid transfers to opener's major assume that means opener will bid the major. Therefore N/S misinformed E/W.

But the opponents were not told 4♣ transfers to opener's major; if they were of course this would be MI. They were told it asked opener to transfer to his major.

[c_corgi]

Leaving aside the debate about N/S disclosure, the existence of which bemuses me, is there any evidence to suggest damage, apart from self-serving statements by E/W? The only logical way I can see to interpret their actions is that W doubled 4C to show clubs and East cuebid North's suit as a raise of clubs. This would imply that East at least had understood the explanation.

[MickyB]

bluejak, on 2011-November-29, 00:50, said:

Tonight I gave my regular partner the sequence

---

and told he that 4♣ was asked, and described as "asking me to transfer into my major". I then asked her what 4♥ meant.

"Hearts" she said, "he asked to transfer into his major so he did."

I suggested that 4♥ might show spades, as she and I play.

"Don't be ridiculous," she said, "he was asked to transfer into his major."

I think the people who support a pair who cannot be bothered to give an adequate explanation of their methods should reconsider their position.

Perhaps your partner has heard you misuse the word "transfer" before? I gave the exact explanation to a player less experienced than any at the Tolle, who had never played the method.

"I hope this isnt a trick question because I'll guess spades"

[I suggest it might show hearts]

"You used the word transfer"

[gnasher]

I think the confusion arose because the verb "to transfer" as used by most bridge players means something different from the normal English meaning. "Partner opened 1NT and I transferred to hearts" means "I made a transfer bid of 2D, showing hearts", not "I bid 2H to play"; "I took a train to Crewe and then transferred to the London train" means "I got on the London train", not "I asked someone else to carry me to the London train".

However, I don't think this is relevant. Apparently EW asked about the 4♣ bid, but didn't bother to ask about 4♥. The most that the explanation of 4♣ tells them is what North would have done if East had passed. However you interpret the phrase "asks me to transfer", that can only refer to the expected sequence where the next hand passes. Nobody can reasonably assume that it means "asks me to transfer to my major regardless of what the next hand does." Even if you were playing 4C as "asks me to bid my major", you might well do something different over a double. Hence, East should have asked about 4♥ rather than assuming that the meaning was the same as it would have been over a pass.

If I had been South, I would have avoided this problem by breaking the rules and alerting 4♥. Others might have used the "half alert" technique, where you reach for the alert card and then guiltily withdraw your hand, as though you've just remembered that the rules changed a decade ago. But we can't penalise South for following the rules.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-November-29, 12:09

[Trinidad]

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.

I won't fix your posts, I will quote it first and then suggest a correction. I would correct it to:

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

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

Rik

[VixTD]

This ruling divided the directors and appeals committee / players, and this seems to be borne out in this discussion. The TD adjusted the score (to what exactly I'm not sure), but denied redress to EW for their wild or gambling action. When I heard that NS were going to appeal I fully expected the AC to keep the deposit, as did the TD who gave the ruling. The AC overturned the ruling in a trice. I thought they were wrong, and still do.

I have some sympathy with the other camp, as I suppose a literal interpretation of the explanation is indeed what they say, but the potential for misunderstanding here is huge, and the onus is on the side playing complex methods to explain their agreements clearly. I gave the auction and explanation up to and including 4♥ to two players at the club last night (who, admittedly, wouldn't get into even the Staffs and Shrops Tollemache team, but were no strangers to congresses). When I asked them to tell me what they thought NS had, they both assumed opener had hearts rather than spades, and were astonished to learn otherwise.

Mamos made the interesting suggestion that East's 4♠ bid should be considered a serious error related to the infraction, and therefore untouchable by law. I still think it comes under the classification of "wild or gambling". It certainly looks like a wild bid to me, rather than just a mistake.

[Oof Arted]

campboy, on 2011-November-29, 04:20, said:

But the opponents were not told 4♣ transfers to opener's major; if they were of course this would be MI. They were told it asked opener to transfer to his major.

Trinidad, on 2011-November-29, 08:15, said:

I won't fix your posts, I will quote it first and then suggest a correction. I would correct it to:

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

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

Rik

My reading of the problem exactly Whether it is English I leave to the academics

[Pig Trader]

Firstly, my thanks to Vix for putting his fingers to the keyboard for the OP. He and I discussed at the end of the event whether to post details of this ruling here. I also composed this post before seeing his most recent post, so apologies for some duplication.

I was the TD that gave the ruling and I’ve been following this thread with considerable interest.

37 counties sent teams of 8 to about 10 players, and the counties were drawn into 4 groups of 9 or 10 teams each to play round-robins over about 96 boards. Two groups played in a large hall while the other two groups, including mine, were separate in smaller rooms. Two TDs looked after and scored for each group.

As Mamos suggested, the relative strengths of the counties were quite varied. The NS pair had each played for England not too long ago, while the EW pair came from a sparsely populated county.

As Jeremy suggested, there are two elements. Do we adjust for NS and do we adjust for EW?

Let’s start with the NS pair and the discussion that has dominated this thread, and which is the more intensely debated issue.

East asked about the 4♣ bid at her turn. The 2♦ bid had earlier been explained as a weak two in either major with 0-7 HCP.

North said “He’s asking me to transfer to my major”. (I actually noted on the Appeal Record what Vix quoted but the difference is trivial.)

If I had been sitting East, I would have thought that the 4♣ bid was somehow some kind of transfer bid, and it would not have crossed my mind that the 4♣ bid was asking North to make a Transfer Bid for South to complete.

The actual East was just as certain as I would have been that North held hearts. That’s why East asked no supplementary questions. My colleague TD agreed entirely with my view that the explanation was so poor as to constitute Mis-Information and I ruled under Law 21B that the score for NS be adjusted to 4♠ +1. I later discussed this with at least half of the other TDs at the event and they all took my view.

When I advised the NS Pair of my adjustment to their score and that they should make far clearer the way in which they describe the 4♣ bid, for example “asking me to bid the suit below the major that I hold”, they appeared to think I was mad and they appealed immediately.

It took a little longer to decide what to do about the score for EW. The double of 4♣ had been intended as lead-directing but East had taken it to show a good hand. East argued that North had shown a weak hand and it was quite possible that South was making some pre-emptive raise. I didn’t consider that the 4♠ bid was WoG but instead that a serious error had occurred. But was this serious error related to the infraction? There was no doubt anywhere that the 4♣ bid was artificial, but that was not the infraction. There is also error by East in that the clear part of the explanation of the 4♣ bid was that South, if he didn’t hold a strong hand, held length in both majors to want to play for 10 tricks in either major. The effect of applying Law 12C1(b) was that EW kept their –1100. One TD at the event and one contributor on this thread suggested that the serious error may be argued to be related to the infraction, and that I was a bit harsh on EW. I did advise EW and their captain of their right to appeal and mentioned that the other side had already appealed and at least one team would have to lose an appeal if they both appealed! The EW team accepted the ruling. As the result of the appeal would not directly affect them, they did not feel the need to represent themselves at the appeal hearing.

The consideration for EW turned out to be moot as the Appeal Committee unanimously took the view of many of the other contributors to this thread and felt that the explanation by North was completely clear. I think that the Appeal Committee were as surprised by my ruling as I was by their decision!

The reason that I am unhappy with the outcome is that if I had been North and playing the same methods, I would have explained the 4♣ call in what I would consider as a clearer way such that opponents would be correctly informed. I would not receive the 1100 windfall (East said that if she had been informed more clearly, she would not have overcalled at the 5-level). It therefore seems unfair to me that this NS should benefit from giving what I strongly consider to be an unclear explanation.

This thread has also highlighted the two schools of thought, again with those I know as EBU TDs taking my views and those whom I know as strong players taking the views of the Appeal Committee. Fascinating!

Barrie

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2011-November-29, 03:01, said:

[snip]
Of course, I'd be perfectly happy for EW to keep their bad result.

Why? And why "of course"?

Edit: Ah, I see. You agree with Barrie that the result was due to East's SEWoG 4♠ bid. Not sure I agree with Barrie's analysis, because I'm not at all sure that 4♣ necessarily shows length in both majors. Could not South have a hand that thinks playing in partner's major would be best, in spite of South's major holding?

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-November-29, 10:09
Reason for edit: Barrie's subsequent post