[phil_20686]

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 08:49, said:

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

It seems rude for young people to sit in stationary seats, so am normally EW when I play.

[gordontd]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-30, 08:50, said:

It seems rude for young people to sit in stationary seats, so am normally EW when I play.

So you get the benefit of both colour schemes.

[phil_20686]

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 08:51, said:

So you get the benefit experience of both colour schemes.

[Trinidad]

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.

No, I was not aware of that. Neither would I dismiss his views as idiotic or dialectic. But the fact that he is the manager of London's most civilised bridge club does add another dimension to my post.

The politically incorrect image that I painted of countryside folks that don't understand elementary bridge phrases is not mine. I took it from Mike Amos' post (see below) and exagerated it to make a point (which I may or may not have succeeded in): The fact that the word "transfer" is explained in the OB glossary as a noun and not as a verb doesnot mean that the meaning of the word "transfer" when used as a verb would be unclear to anyone with a decent knowledge of bridge and English.

(This -by the way- doesn't mean that I don't believe EW misunderstood the explanation. I do believe that West misunderstood. In this case, I just think that West understood something that wasn't said. That is too bad, because it let to a silly result, but it is not caused by misinformation, because the information given was correct. And I think that West would realize that if he would repeat the explanation and think about the meaning.)

Rik

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

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.

[campboy]

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.

So the question is: does "transfer", as a verb, mean "make a transfer" or "complete a transfer".

Before this thread I have never heard anyone use "transfer" in the second sense. I have heard it used in the first lots of times.

The Bridge World glossary seems to back me up.

Quote

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.]
(3) (verb) to use a transfer (meaning 1);
(4) (verb) to remove protection in a suit from one opponent and give it to the other;
(5) (adjective) a squeeze involving a transfer (meaning 4).

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2011-November-30, 09:22, said:

So the question is: does "transfer", as a verb, mean "make a transfer" or "complete a transfer".

Oh, I agree the first meaning is far more common. But in the context of the explanation, as given to me by the player the next morning, I understood it the other way until she gave me further guidance - which I don't think she did to the players at the table. Which is why I think the explanation was not really good enough.

[campboy]

I think it is unreasonable to expect N/S to be aware that it has ever been used with the second meaning by anyone. I certainly was not.

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2011-November-30, 10:59, said:

I think it is unreasonable to expect N/S to be aware that it has ever been used with the second meaning by anyone. I certainly was not.

I think it's reasonable to expect them to ensure their opponents have understood their explanation. Since the pair at the table, the TD's at the event, and David Stevenson and I among others, didn't, I think they've probably fallen short of that.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 11:32, said:

campboy, on 2011-November-30, 10:59, said:

I think it is unreasonable to expect N/S to be aware that it has ever been used with the second meaning by anyone. I certainly was not.

I think it's reasonable to expect them to ensure their opponents have understood their explanation. Since the pair at the table, the TD's at the event, and David Stevenson and I among others, didn't, I think they've probably fallen short of that.

If a player (or a TD, or DS, or GordonTD) attaches a meaning to a phrase that this phrase simply doesn't have ("to transfer to" does not mean "to complete a transfer"*) then that is entirely the responsibility of this player (or ...).

Fortunately, the AC, presumably with members who have read (and potentially written) a bridge book or two, understood this too.

Rik

*Or can you quote me a passage from an established bridge book, published before the Tollemache Qualifier, where the verb "to transfer" is used to mean "to complete a transfer"? It didn't take me long to find a quote where "transfer" is used as a verb, meaning "making a transfer bid" (emphasis mine):

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 5th Edition said:

Transfers over doubles of one notrump
A four-suit escape method. A redouble is a transfer to clubs. 2♣ transfers to diamonds, 2♦ to hearts and 2♥ to spades.[]

(The word "transfer" was not used as a verb under "Transfer bids", "Transfer opening three bids", "Texas convention", "Jacoby transfer bids" or "Four-suit transfer bids".)

I would be particularly impressed if you would be able to find a quote stating that "2♥ transfers from 2♦".

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-30, 14:14, said:

If a player (or a TD, or DS, or GordonTD) attaches a meaning to a phrase that this phrase simply doesn't have ("to transfer to" does not mean "to complete a transfer"*) then that is entirely the responsibility of this player (or ...).

But... in England the word transfer is not used as clearly as it is in some other places. For example, Jacoby transfers are referred to as "red suit transfers" rather than "major suit transfers". They are taught this way by bridge teachers, and someone can easily believe that the essence of a transfer is "transferring from" rather than "transferring to". Perhaps this seems like gibberish and it probably is; what I am trying to say is that in common parlance, and not only among inexperienced players, the term "transfer" is not well understood.

[StevenG]

I think that at club level in England, many ordinary players would explain a simple tranfer sequence, say 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥, as something like "2♦ - I'm making a transfer bid to hearts", and "2♥ - I'm transferring to hearts".

I don't know if this fact (if it is!) is relevant to county "A" players for a "minor" county, who will be at least very experienced tournament players, and rather more knowledgable than the players I am talking about. However, I'm aware that most of the English players who are saying the explanation is clear seem to be young players with a background in University bridge (not the typical environment), whereas those who oppose that view are experienced TDs with a good knowledge of how regular tournament players think.

[mrdct]

---

So in this auction are there people in the UK who would describe 2NT as "that asks me to transfer to my minor"?

[Pig Trader]

mrdct, on 2011-November-30, 15:30, said:

So in this auction are there people in the UK who would describe 2NT as "that asks me to transfer to my minor"?

If someone were to do so, I would understand perfectly!

Barrie

[gordontd]

I just asked three people at the club what they thought the original sequence & explanation showed: the first, a 26 year-old regular tournament player, looked at me as though I was mad for asking, but when pushed to answer the question said that of course it showed a weak-two in hearts. The other two were both familiar with the mechanism, and were equally clear that of course it showed what it did. So I won't get caught out by this again, but I certainly wouldn't describe it that way if I were to play it.

[mrdct]

I'm pretty sure that this is a peculiarity limited to the UK where in some circles it is evident that "bid" and "transfer" mean the same thing which is perhaps a function of other non-bridge usages of the word "transfer" such as an example given up-thread of transfering to the bus to London which wouldn't be common usage of that term in my part of the world. I'm fairly confident that I would never come across a person at the bridge table in Australia who wouldn't understand "that asks me to transfer to my major", but I will be on the lookout for any obviously inexperienced opponents and will be extra careful to make sure they understand what I'm saying.

[Trinidad]

mrdct, on 2011-November-30, 15:30, said:

---

So in this auction are there people in the UK who would describe 2NT as "that asks me to transfer to my minor"?

If I were East-West, I would call the TD at the end of the deal if North would not have 4+ diamonds (and North-South wouldn't have corrected the explanation before the opening lead).

I would expect a warning for the opponents and if we were damaged by the MI, I would expect an AS.

Rik

P.S. Note that an agreement as explained is entirely playable: 2NT asks for a transfer to the minor (implying that you would be willing to play at least 4♣ or 3NT if overcaller holds clubs). With hands where you want to stay at the 3 level (or where you want overcaller to play a higher level diamond contract if that is his minor), you would bid 3♣: pass or correct.

[Trinidad]

mrdct, on 2011-November-30, 17:35, said:

I'm pretty sure that this a peculiarity limited to the UK where in some circles it is evident that "bid" and "transfer" mean the same thing which is perhaps a function of other non-bridge usages of the word "transfer" such as an example given up-thread of transfering to the bus to London which wouldn't be common usage of that term in my part of the world. I'm fairly confident that I would never come across a person at the bridge table in Australia who wouldn't understand "that asks me to transfer to my major", but I will be on the lookout for any obviously inexperienced opponents and will be extra careful to make sure they understand what I'm saying.

Well, you are obviously biased. Look at your sig!

Rik

[gnasher]

It took a bit of research, but:

Quote

FLINT CONVENTION
... this convention enables the responder to a 2NT opening to halt the bidding in three of a major suit. The first step is to respond 3♦, directing the opener to bid 3♥...
976542 43 107 J64
Over the forced rebid of 3♥, responder will transfer to 3♠...

   Reese & Dormer, Bridge Player's Alphabetical Handbook, 1981

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-November-30, 17:35, said:

I'm pretty sure that this is a peculiarity limited to the UK where in some circles it is evident that "bid" and "transfer" mean the same thing which is perhaps a function of other non-bridge usages of the word "transfer" such as an example given up-thread of transfering to the bus to London which wouldn't be common usage of that term in my part of the world. I'm fairly confident that I would never come across a person at the bridge table in Australia who wouldn't understand "that asks me to transfer to my major", but I will be on the lookout for any obviously inexperienced opponents and will be extra careful to make sure they understand what I'm saying.

I doubt you can find a bus to London in your part of the world.

[mrdct]

That Flint Convention example is just further evidence that there are people in the UK that use the terms "bid" and "transfer" interchangeably. To any reasonable person, the description in Reece & Dormer would surely be less ambiguous if it read "Over the forced rebid of 3♥, responder will transfer to bid 3♠...".

In terms of how 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠ ought to be described if asked, I would suggest proper disclosure would be:

3♦: "that's a puppet to 3♥ requiring me to bid 3♥ which he's either going to pass or transfer to bid his suit which will be non-forcing".
3♥: "he's required to bid that".
3♠: "he's showing a weak hand with spades".

If someone used the term "transfer to" rather than "bid" in the description of 3♦, I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to assume 3♠ did not show spades and was in fact showing a different suit (probably clubs) but if I was given such an explanation I'd be asking for some clarificaiton of what 3♠ shows if and when it's bid.

There is quite a lengthly description of the Flint convention at bridgeguys which makes no use of the word "transfer" other than saying that the introduction of transfer bids has decreased the popularity of the Flint convention.