[Ant590]

Really interesting thread. As someone who would probably describe the 4♣ bid in exactly the same way as the OP, I was amazed at those who thought such an explanation was ambiguous. However I see where they are coming from.

My choice of words would be from a system file that defines 4♣ as "transfer me to your major" and 4♦ as "bid your major". So as far as I would be concerned that is our agreement, and the opponents are in a situation where they have as much explicit information about the agreement as we have, although I can be sure implicitly I have a greater understanding. I guess there is a fine line between explanations which some would find patronizing (and no doubt tell me so), and those which are cryptic for those not in the know.

[MickyB]

Ant590, on 2011-November-29, 11:43, said:

Really interesting thread. As someone who would probably describe the 4♣ bid in exactly the same way as the OP, I was amazed at those who thought such an explanation was ambiguous. However I see where they are coming from.

My choice of words would be from a system file that defines 4♣ as "transfer me to your major" and 4♦ as "bid your major". So as far as I would be concerned that is our agreement, and the opponents are in a situation where they have as much explicit information about the agreement as we have, although I can be sure implicitly I have a greater understanding. I guess there is a fine line between explanations which some would find patronizing (and no doubt tell me so), and those which are cryptic for those not in the know.

The description of 4D removes any ambiguity about the meaning of 4C.

I asked someone who played in the Tolle and who had no preconceived idea of what 4C would mean, they too considered it clear from the explanation that the 4H bid showed spades [FWIW I presented the auction without the double of 4C].

[WellSpyder]

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.

Completely disagree. I'm reluctant to add to the vast amount of verbiage already contributed to this thread, but although I have a lot of respect for Bluejak I do think that on this occasion he is simply on a different planet from the majority of bridge players in not recognising a difference between bidding a suit and transferring to a suit.

mamos, on 2011-November-28, 18:59, said:

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.

Despite my comment above, however, I'm happy to accept that this gets to the crux of the matter. I will certainly be more careful in future in explaining this agreement if it ever comes up when I am at the table since the onus is clearly on the explaining side to get their agreement across. Of course there comes a point where you simply have to assume the opponents have understood clear english, but the very existence of the debate on this thread makes clear that there are better ways of trying to avoid confusion in explaining this agreement than the approach adopted in the case under discussion.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-29, 09:57, said:

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?

I think 4♠ is a wild bid.

[RMB1]

mamos, on 2011-November-28, 18:59, said:

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. ...

But there must be a line. At some point an explanation is sufficiently clear and unambiguous and any misunderstanding is the fault of those hearing the explanation. The Laws do allow that players can misunderstand (Law 21A) or not pay sufficient attentions (Law 74B1).

It can not be an absolute defence to say I understood explanation X to mean Y and get an adjustment.

But the onus must be on the explaining side to be clear and unambiguous. To me (and campboy) this explanation was clear and unambiguous and we have to strain to start to understand it as EW did. This is perhaps because we have heard the explanation before, and "know" that 4D means "bid your major" and that 4C/4D mean different things. As I said earlier, I would not rule solely on the basis of my understanding of the explanation, but I would try to establish how EW's peers would understand the explanation. I would also establish if EW's peers would expect to protect themselves by asking the meaning of 4♥ (over the Double).

[mrdct]

Pig Trader, on 2011-November-29, 09:48, said:

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!

What this illustrates is a tendancy from experts to take a few things for granted when giving explanations such as what the term "transfer" means. Not that I would ever claim to be an expert, but I guess I can be little bit guilty of that myself. Whilst I do try to gauge the skill level of my opponents and dumb-down my explanations accordingly, there is a risk of coming across as a condescending tool if you do things like explain to your opponents what a pre-empt or transfer is. Having said that, in my regular partnerships we play transfers in a lot of situations but rarely use the word "transfer" to describe transfers which can be made on four-card suits and simply say, "that shows 4+ bananas" as I have been in the situation where an opponent claimed damage due to playing me to hold five-cards in my transfered suit as he'd never seen anyone transfer with a four-card suit before.

When this thread started, I honestly couldn't think of an alternative explanation for 4♣ that would be more clear than that which was given, but it is now evident that amongst lower-skill players in the UK, "transfer" does not have the same meaning as set out in the Orange Book, so it does seem that some extra care is warranted in that part of the world.

[blackshoe]

At the club today I asked half a dozen people, of varying ability, what they thought was going on here. All of them said 4♥ showed spades.

[Pig Trader]

I asked three players at my club this evening. One has played for England and he wanted clarification of the explanation. Another was the captain of a county that won their group at the Tollemache and she thought that hearts were held. Finally I asked my partner and she couldn't believe it meant spades.

I think it makes quite a difference whether one has encountered such methods before.

mrdct, on 2011-November-29, 14:28, said:

.... it is now evident that amongst lower-skill players in the UK, "transfer" does not have the same meaning as set out in the Orange Book, so it does seem that some extra care is warranted in that part of the world.

The Orange Book has, in its glossary, a definition of a Transfer Bid. It doesn't have a definition of the verb "transfer". The explanation was "asking me to transfer to my major" and not "asking me to make a Transfer Bid to my major".

Barrie

[Trinidad]

Pig Trader, on 2011-November-29, 19:46, said:

I think it makes quite a difference whether one has encountered such methods before.

The Orange Book has, in its glossary, a definition of a Transfer Bid. It doesn't have a definition of the verb "transfer". The explanation was "asking me to transfer to my major" and not "asking me to make a Transfer Bid to my major".

Barrie

Are you trying to say:
"Since the verb "to transfer" is not defined in the glossary of the Orange book, players do not necessarily understand it."?

In bridge all over, a heart bid is used to transfer to spades or a diamond bid to transfer to hearts. (Note the use of the verb "to transfer".) Are you seriously contending that bridge players in the Tollemache Qualifier would not understand this meaning of the verb "to transfer"?

If you say that players in the Tollemache Qualifier have not seen this method before, then I find that strange (given that Multi was invented in th U.K., 50(!) years ago), but I will believe that, as I have never played in the Tollemache Qualifier. But if you state that players in the Tollemache Qualifier do not know what the verb "to transfer" means in a bridge sense, because it is not defined in the Orange book (which, of course, is every bridge player's favorite reading material ), my believing stops.

Rik

[campboy]

I asked three players yesterday. None had encountered this method before. One said he didn't know what 4♥ meant and would ask; both the others thought the explanation was unambiguous and meant opener had spades.

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-30, 02:19, said:

In bridge all over, a heart bid is used to transfer to spades or a diamond bid to transfer to hearts. (Note the use of the verb "to transfer".)

Indeed so. And in the original post, we are told that the explanation given was that the player should transfer to the major suit that she holds. When she then bid hearts, it seems far from clear to me that her suit was spades.

[phil_20686]

I am literally amazed at people who think this explanation can be misunderstood. I have used methods where a relay "asks me to transfer to my suit", everywhere from the Peebles Congress in Scotland to the Jnr Euro chamionships and no one has ever misunderstood such an explanation.

If I had been north, and had held a reasonable spade suit, that for some reason I didn't bid the first time, and had passed 4h expecting to dble 4S and it had been passed on this explanation, I would have immediately called the director on the grounds that 4h was not the transfer it was described as. And I would have expected to win the ruling easily, a transfer being a bid that does not show the suit bid.

I heard about this by email from some of my friends playing in the Tolle, and we were agreed that the original ruling was ridiculous, "WTF? What do they think transfer means" was one response. People who are arguing about the verb usage are absurd: If I say "Partner is transferring to hearts", it obviously means he has made some bid (that isn't hearts) that shows hearts and asks me to bid hearts. If the auction is 1N P 2H natural, I do not say "partner is transferring to hearts" which is the usage suggested by bluekak.

[phil_20686]

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 05:47, said:

Indeed so. And in the original post, we are told that the explanation given was that the player should transfer to the major suit that she holds. When she then bid hearts, it seems far from clear to me that her suit was spades.

The explanation given was that opener would transfer to her major in response to the 4C bid - what is unclear about that?

By any normal definition "making a transfer" means bidding a suit that is not the suit she holds.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 05:47, said:

Trinidad, on 2011-November-30, 02:19, said:

In bridge all over, a heart bid is used to transfer to spades or a diamond bid to transfer to hearts. (Note the use of the verb "to transfer".)

Indeed so. And in the original post, we are told that the explanation given was that the player should transfer to the major suit that she holds. When she then bid hearts, it seems far from clear to me that her suit was spades.

Fill in:
Explanation: "I should transfer to my major."
I bid hearts.
Therefore, I am transferring to ...

Keep in mind (as you agreed yourself):

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 05:47, said:

indeed,

Trinidad, on 2011-November-30, 02:19, said:

a heart bid is used to transfer to spades or a diamond bid to transfer to hearts

But perhaps it might be a good idea to put up a warning sign at the door:

Quote

Warning to all players:
Please be advised that the field that you are about to enter is of very mixed standard. Though your opponents, supposedly, are the strongest players in their county, some counties are situated so far from the civilized world London that the use of otherwise common bridge language (e.g. "transfer", "game forcing", and others) has not permeated to these remote locations. Therefore, special care should be taken whenever one tries to explain a convention or treatment to a savage a rural an opponent speaking with an accent that is different (however slightly) from the Queen's English.

Thanking you for your understanding and wishing you a peasant pleasant tournament,

EBU

Rik

[gordontd]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-30, 06:31, said:

The explanation given was that opener would transfer to her major in response to the 4C bid - what is unclear about that?

By any normal definition "making a transfer" means bidding a suit that is not the suit she holds.

Nothing that I heard or have since seen written suggests that she said "it asks me to make a transfer to my major". Had she said that, I doubt we would be discussing this.

When my partner responds 2H to my 1NT opening bid, what do I do? I transfer to spades, as requested.

And, in answer to Rik's point above, although it is common that hearts are a transfer to spades, I also play in some situations (especially at the four level) that clubs transfer to hearts and diamonds to spades.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, are you aware that Gordon is the manager of London's most civilised bridge club? That makes it hard to dismiss his views as a dialectic quirk or rustic idiocy.

[jnichols]

How strange!

When this thread was staqrted a large majority of the people who have posted to it thought that the explaination of the 4♣ bid was quite clear. )Myself included.)

A small minority apparently thought the explaination was unclear. They are quite clearly correct since half of the majority are centain it meant on thing and half thought it meant something else.

Perhaps not so strange - we seem to do this a lot

[phil_20686]

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 08:01, said:

Nothing that I heard or have since seen written suggests that she said "it asks me to make a transfer to my major". Had she said that, I doubt we would be discussing this.

When my partner responds 2H to my 1NT opening bid, what do I do? I transfer to spades, as requested.

No, partner transferred to spades, you completed the transfer. He is transferring, you are completing. Simples.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2011-November-30, 08:13, said:

Trinidad, are you aware that Gordon is the manager of London's most civilised bridge club? That makes it hard to dismiss his views as a dialectic quirk or rustic idiocy.

Most Civilised? If “Art is the signature of civilizations.”, then I'm afraid the yellow decor quite rules it out...

[gordontd]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-30, 08:40, said:

Most Civilised? If “Art is the signature of civilizations.”, then I'm afraid the yellow decor quite rules it out...

You're welcome to play in the pink room if you prefer.