[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-30, 15:55, said:

I agree with you 100%. OTOH, I'm tired of being made to look like the bad guy who "calls the TD all the time". Today my (pretty experienced) RHO, dealer, put a pass card on the table, picked it up, I said "wait a minute" and he and his partner both insisted that "it's okay, he picked it right back up". I thought about it for a bit, but I could see that calling the TD wasn't going to get me anything but pissed off opponents, so I said "screw it, make your bid". LHO thanked me! Another round, I revoked, corrected it, and RHO, dummy(!) started giving a ruling! I was pretty sure LHO knew his rights, so I just asked RHO why he, dummy, was participating in the play. I got a blank look. Call the TD? What the Hell for? She's not going to do anything.

blackshoe is well aware that when attention is drawn to an infraction, you must still call the director
That may not result in a sensible ruling, given the state of the laws
But unless you call the director you make a bad situation worse.

[blackshoe]

Ordinarily I would agree. Not in this case.

[aguahombre]

 mycroft, on 2012-April-30, 15:16, said:

Transfer is a bad word to misuse, and it is worth it, even if one looks like an SB, to challenge at all points the dilution of it. Others will differ with my judgement, of course.

Of course they will. But you, up there...and I, down here, will continue to piss off the B/I opponents who misuse "transfer" until they run to the teacher who screwed them up to begin with ---he/she comes to straighten us out ---and we in turn enlighten the teachers.

Then we will move on to our next crusade.

[barmar]

I wonder how many of these players were formally "taught" to misuse terms like this. I suspect they mostly either came up with it themselves, because they don't understand the nuances of the terms, or they picked it up by osmosis from other players. This is how language spreads and changes -- it's really hard to force language users to stick to the formal definitions of words if they find it convenient to do otherwise. Even in limited contexts like a game, people will speak the way they find easiest, ignoring prescriptions from authorities.

This is, of course, an age-old problem: if dictionaries disagree with common usage, what makes them "right"?

On a related note, the editorial in this month's Bridge World is about how the meanings of common convention names have drifted over time (e.g. what is now often called Drury should be Fit-Drury, because Drury originally didn't imply support).

[mycroft]

in many cases, and it's clear I wasn't clear last time, their "teacher" is not the person teaching them bridge in a class-type setting, but the person who convinced them to play 4-way transfers because "they're good", and explained what they have to do for Alerting (wrong, of course. But they learned it from their teacher, who learned it from...)

Most real teachers of this calibre of player will be attempting to take away conventions, not add them. One hopes they know the Alerting requirements of simple things like this, but you never know.

[RMB1]

Use of the word "transfer", like most language acquision, will be through hearing others use the term and using it oneself and seeing if it understood. Very little acquision is through looking up a word in a dictionary (or even bridge regulations) and following the definition given there.

To complain that a word is being misused in conversation between players is as futile as complaining about annoying new/changed usages in everyday speach.

[blackshoe]

Pointing out that they're wrong, and hoping they'll change, is probably equally futile, but it's not complaining.

Today, my 80 something LHO opened 1NT. His somewhat younger partner bid 2♠, and he announced "transfer". I asked for an explanation. He said "we play four suit transfers". I just looked at him. He said "it's a transfer to clubs. 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds." Okay, fair enough. After the round, I commented that the proper thing is to alert any transfer that isn't a transfer to one of the majors. He said "okay". I'd be very surprised if the next time it comes up he says anything other than "transfer". He's a good player, and he's probably been playing since I was a toddler. I very much doubt he's taken any lessons in the last forty years or more.

[RMB1]

OK. My previous post was not directed at annoucements but st "free" language used in explanations. We should expect players to get annoucement correct according to the regulations, and the formal language of announcements may influence the language players use in explanations; but it will take more than definitions in any regulations to change the way players use language.

[ahydra]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-01, 15:39, said:

Today, my 80 something LHO opened 1NT. His somewhat younger partner bid 2♠, and he announced "transfer". I asked for an explanation. He said "we play four suit transfers". I just looked at him. He said "it's a transfer to clubs. 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds." Okay, fair enough. After the round, I commented that the proper thing is to alert any transfer that isn't a transfer to one of the majors.

This is why I'm fully in favour of extending announcements to "everything" on the first round. For instance, why aren't Stayman and Transfers announced rather than alerted after a 2NT opening? Everyone does it because it's the practical thing to do, even though it's not what the regulations say.

Partner got it right last night though. 1C-1H(4+ spades) and the opp asked, she said "shows at least 4 spades" rather than "transfer to spades". I'm the one studying to be a TD and I always say "transfer" -.-

So what say we post something in the Changing Laws forum, angling for something like announcements on first round of auction for short clubs ("could be as short as 2"), strong clubs ("any 16+") + negative response ("negative"), 1NT/2NT/natural two level openings, stayman/puppet stayman/5card stayman, and any sort of transfer-shaped thing (i.e. it shows 5+ cards in a known suit which you announce by naming the suit).

When a major law change comes out, normally clubs put up notices and TDs announce it, etc so players will be aware, and they probably won't object given that they normally announce all these things anyway

ahydra

[WellSpyder]

 ahydra, on 2012-May-02, 03:35, said:

why aren't Stayman and Transfers announced rather than alerted after a 2NT opening? Everyone does it because it's the practical thing to do, even though it's not what the regulations say.
ahydra

Not round here, they don't (England, north of London!). Do those announcing Stayman also announce whether it is 4-card Stayman or 5-card Stayman??? Just wait until pran gets to hear about this......

[blackshoe]

 ahydra, on 2012-May-02, 03:35, said:

So what say we post something in the Changing Laws forum, angling for something like announcements on first round of auction for short clubs ("could be as short as 2"), strong clubs ("any 16+") + negative response ("negative"), 1NT/2NT/natural two level openings, stayman/puppet stayman/5card stayman, and any sort of transfer-shaped thing (i.e. it shows 5+ cards in a known suit which you announce by naming the suit).

Go right ahead. Keep in mind that this is regulation, not law. In North America, for example, we already announce transfers to the majors over 2NT.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-01, 15:39, said:

Pointing out that they're wrong, and hoping they'll change, is probably equally futile, but it's not complaining.

Today, my 80 something LHO opened 1NT. His somewhat younger partner bid 2♠, and he announced "transfer". I asked for an explanation. He said "we play four suit transfers". I just looked at him. He said "it's a transfer to clubs. 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds." Okay, fair enough. After the round, I commented that the proper thing is to alert any transfer that isn't a transfer to one of the majors. He said "okay". I'd be very surprised if the next time it comes up he says anything other than "transfer". He's a good player, and he's probably been playing since I was a toddler. I very much doubt he's taken any lessons in the last forty years or more.

Quite true: old dogs vs. new tricks. He should be proud of himself for adapting to the announcement system that was added a few years ago, although this was probably easier because you hear it happening all the time. But details like this, which seem somewhat arbitrary and don't come up as much, are harder to fix.

Related to the language acquisition issue someone else mentioned, there's also the "categorization" issue. Memorizing arbitrary rules is hard, it's much easier to learn general rules. But these rules are often learned intuitively, by generalizing categories from examples, and can result in the wrong categories. Some players just pick up on the idea that announcements are for common conventions, rather than learning the specific set that requires announcements. So you occasionally hear people announce inverted minors, Jacoby 2NT, weak jump shifts, etc.

The strange thing for me is that I'm generally the type of person who can't memorize things. I like to keep my bidding mostly natural -- most of the conventions I use need to have a logical structure to them so that I can remember them, and I'm sure I'd be lost in a fancy relay system. But somehow I've never had trouble remembering the details of the alert/announce system -- maybe it's just because there are only about a half dozen arbitrary things you have to remember, and that's within my capacity.

[bluejak]

 jallerton, on 2012-April-27, 16:06, said:

The opening post was a simple query, which has been answered in full by more than one replier. It seems a curious decision to move this small thread when there is another current discussion still in 'simple rulings' which has had no fewer than 423 replies so far

The difference between Simple Rulings and Laws & Rulings is in the questions asked, not in the answers. So it is perfectly reasonable for a Simple Rulings question to have 400+ replies, and a Laws & Rulings one 10-.

 jallerton, on 2012-April-27, 16:06, said:

You are right that "marionette" is a Bridge World term (quite a useful one in my view). The EBU Orange Book defines the other three of these terms.

Please will someone remind me of The Bridge World definition.

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-27, 17:04, said:

As a general rule, though, I'm not sure we should be moving threads from "Simple Rulings" to "Laws and Rulings" just because they get beyond some number X of posts or pages.

I do not think we should.

 mycroft, on 2012-April-30, 15:16, said:

And this (campboy's comment) is my problem. There are *many* people in my area who explain 1NT-2♠ as "transfer", even going to the point of Announcing it (rather than Alerting it, which they must do even if it *is* a transfer, where I play).

When we announce we do not say "Transfer", we say "Hearts" or "Spades". No doubt if we extended announcements to transfers in a minor we wodul say "Clubs" or "Diamonds" which seem unambiguous to me.

 aguahombre, on 2012-April-30, 21:15, said:

Then we will move on to our next crusade.

To stop writing 'will' when we mean 'shall'?

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-02, 05:48, said:

Go right ahead. Keep in mind that this is regulation, not law. In North America, for example, we already announce transfers to the majors over 2NT.

As they do in Northern Ireland. Because they have been going for a few years in England and Wales before Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland decided to introduce them, they have widened the scope based on our successful epxperiences.

Scotland think they are an English idea, so they are not going to introduce them.

[campboy]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-02, 10:11, said:

Please will someone remind me of The Bridge World definition.

IIRC a "puppet" requires partner to make a particular call and a "marionette" is similar but permits him to do something else in rare cases. So, at least the way I play lebensohl, 1NT (2♠) 2NT is a puppet but (2♠) dbl (pass) 2NT is a marionette.

[pran]

 WellSpyder, on 2012-May-02, 04:21, said:

Just wait until pran gets to hear about this......

What makes you think that I will bother?

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-02, 10:11, said:

When we announce we do not say "Transfer", we say "Hearts" or "Spades". No doubt if we extended announcements to transfers in a minor we wodul say "Clubs" or "Diamonds" which seem unambiguous to me.

Not necessarily. Many play that 2♠ is a puppet to 3♣, but responder uses this with either minor, correcting to 3♦ if that's his suit. I'll bet many would announce this as "Clubs", even if the regulation were to say that this annoucement should only be used in the case where you're specificalling showing ♣.

[WellSpyder]

 pran, on 2012-May-02, 16:05, said:

What makes you think that I will bother?

Fair enough. My comment was meant as a light-hearted reminder of recent discussions, rather than as a challenge.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-May-03, 00:50, said:

Not necessarily. Many play that 2♠ is a puppet to 3♣, but responder uses this with either minor, correcting to 3♦ if that's his suit. I'll bet many would announce this as "Clubs", even if the regulation were to say that this annoucement should only be used in the case where you're specificalling showing ♣.

Precisely why, IMO, it should remain an alert and not an announcement.

I don't even feel good about announcing 2D since the "transfer" could be broken by a Walsh Relay; but, that is the way it seems to be right now (here). "Transfer to hearts, usually." May I say that?.

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2012-May-03, 08:59, said:

I don't even feel good about announcing 2D since the "transfer" could be broken by a Walsh Relay; but, that is the way it seems to be right now (here). "Transfer to hearts, usually." May I say that?.

Do you mean that it might be hearts and might be something else instead? I think an alert would be better. People will hear "transfer to hearts" and then turn off their ears.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that the ACBL regulation on Announcements is pretty clear that the wording of the announcement should be as prescribed in the regulation: "fifteen to seventeen" (or whatever it is) for the 1NT opening, "transfer" for a red suit transfer to the next higher suit (one of the majors) at any level in response to a no-trump opening bid, overcall, or rebid, "forcing" or "semi-forcing" for a 1NT response to a 1M opening bid with no interference, or finally "may be short" for a 1m non-forcing opening which could contain fewer than three cards in the suit.

In the Walsh relay case, I agree with Stef — alert the 2♦ bid. The alternative is to announce "transfer", and then alert responder's subsequent 2♠ bid, which is probably also correct, since at the time 2♦ is bid, opener assumes partner has hearts. Some will no doubt argue, though, that the latter approach is not "full disclosure".