Help
recently while playing i bid a minor suit transfer to my partners open of 1nt - 2spades. the opponent wanted to know what it was. i said transfer and he asked again. i said transfer. he called the director on me and said there is a new rule that you must say to what suit you are transferring, Really? Why don't i just show him my hand. I dont know where the new rules are and dont want to spend my time looking them up,, Later an opp bid a limit raise and asked him to explain. he ignored me. I called the director and she said he needs to explain. He thought everyone knew that bid. Isn't there a way bbo can inform us to the new rules? there are so many players bidding strange bids and not going by the rules. And have nothing in their profile. Maybe in the 'messages ' they could inform us of the changes.
Page 1 of 1
rules new
#2
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2021-February-02, 12:19
chigal64, on 2021-February-02, 11:44, said:
recently while playing i bid a minor suit transfer to my partners open of 1nt - 2spades. the opponent wanted to know what it was. i said transfer and he asked again. i said transfer. he called the director on me and said there is a new rule that you must say to what suit you are transferring, Really? Why don't i just show him my hand.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,082
- Joined: 2003-April-26
- Gender:Male
- Location:Scottish Borders
Posted 2021-February-02, 12:22
There is no new rule, bridge is a game of full disclosure. As it says in the Laws, "Each partnership has a duty to make its partnership understandings available to its opponents."
On BBO, how this is done is delegated to the tournament organiser or director. For example, if you are playing in an ACBL event, the ACBL has alert regulations that the tournament director will expect everyone to follow.
But if you are making a call that has a defined meaning in your partnership, then you are expected to disclose that meaning to the opponents. So if a 2♠ response to one no trump shows a club suit, then you are expected to say transfer to clubs and, preferably, include if there is a specific range.
Other popular meanings for a 2♠ response include: transfer to either minor, normally weak; either a range-ask with no interest in majors or a transfer to clubs (weak or forcing to game).
BBO is a platform where people all over the world play. Meanings of bids vary in popularity, often by country, which is why you should not be offended by someone asking what an 'obvious bid to you' means.
It is interesting that you want to play a game where you are not interested in reading the rules.
The Laws are available at http://www.worldbrid...plicate-bridge/
The alerting regulations depend on who is running the game. The ACBL has new alerting regulations from 1 January 2021 and they are available at https://web2.acbl.or...Procedures2.pdf - these new regulations would not affect your sequences.
On BBO, how this is done is delegated to the tournament organiser or director. For example, if you are playing in an ACBL event, the ACBL has alert regulations that the tournament director will expect everyone to follow.
But if you are making a call that has a defined meaning in your partnership, then you are expected to disclose that meaning to the opponents. So if a 2♠ response to one no trump shows a club suit, then you are expected to say transfer to clubs and, preferably, include if there is a specific range.
Other popular meanings for a 2♠ response include: transfer to either minor, normally weak; either a range-ask with no interest in majors or a transfer to clubs (weak or forcing to game).
BBO is a platform where people all over the world play. Meanings of bids vary in popularity, often by country, which is why you should not be offended by someone asking what an 'obvious bid to you' means.
It is interesting that you want to play a game where you are not interested in reading the rules.
The Laws are available at http://www.worldbrid...plicate-bridge/
The alerting regulations depend on who is running the game. The ACBL has new alerting regulations from 1 January 2021 and they are available at https://web2.acbl.or...Procedures2.pdf - these new regulations would not affect your sequences.
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 163
- Joined: 2020-September-04
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Cyclothymic dilettantism
Posted 2021-February-02, 18:25
chigal64, on 2021-February-02, 11:44, said:
recently while playing i bid a minor suit transfer to my partners open of 1nt - 2spades. the opponent wanted to know what it was. i said transfer and he asked again. i said transfer. he called the director on me and said there is a new rule that you must say to what suit you are transferring, Really? Why don't i just show him my hand. I dont know where the new rules are and dont want to spend my time looking them up,, Later an opp bid a limit raise and asked him to explain. he ignored me. I called the director and she said he needs to explain. He thought everyone knew that bid. Isn't there a way bbo can inform us to the new rules? there are so many players bidding strange bids and not going by the rules. And have nothing in their profile. Maybe in the 'messages ' they could inform us of the changes.
The new ACBL Alert Procedure says to state the suit if it's known, and say Alert if it's not. "Transfer" is no longer used.
- 1NT-2♦-2♥ - say "Hearts"
- 1NT-2♠ as transfer (not relay) to 3♣ (four-way transfers) - "Clubs"
- 1NT-2NT-3♦ (4WT) - "Diamonds"
- 1NT-2♠ and relay to 3♣, pass or correct - "Alert" because the suit's not known.
What I found out from the ACBL Rulings people is that in online games one has to explain the classic 1NT-2♠-3♣ pass-or-correct as "long unspecified minor, relay to 3♣", which is what should appear in the Alert.
#5
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,429
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2021-February-02, 23:13
If your bid shows a specific suit, then you explain that. You can say "transfer to X", but why not just "X"?
If your bid does not show a specific suit, then it is not a transfer. It might be many other things (see below), but it is not a transfer. If it is a transfer, then you should have no concerns telling the opponent which suit you are transferring to.
This is something that (at least in the ACBL) is commonly misunderstood, and leads to situations like this. It's also the reason that (prior to 2021) the only bids that were Announced "transfer" were, after a natural NT opening (or strong bid-response-natural NT "opening") red suit bids that promised the next major suit up. The 1NT-2♠ sequence was always Alerted, even if it promised a club suit. But nobody understood that, so whatever relay-to-minor they were playing they would Announce "transfer", or explain it as a transfer after the Alert was asked about. Even if it was minor-suit Stayman, but especially if it was "weak or GF with either minor". And the players who might have wanted to bid 3♣, or were waiting to defend 3♣, were - understandably - upset when it turned out that "oh, if she corrects, it's diamonds". So after one or two of those, they learn to ask.
Now, of course, in ACBL tournaments, (and frankly it's reasonable anywhere self-alerts happen) you just name the suit you're showing and the word "transfer" isn't used. This is good for those of use who transfer to not the next suit up, and who use transfers in other than NT auctions. This also makes things make more sense for the people who thought they were "transferring" but now feel "why should I tell you this round which suit?" If you can't, Alert and explain that (as morecharac said, a good description is "weak or strong in ♣ or ♦", or "to play 3 of a minor" or "looking for a 4-4 minor fit" or whatever it is your agreement actually is). Again, it's "what hands bid this?", not "which one is it this time?"
As a counterexample, I play Keri. If I explained 1NT-2♣ as "transfer", you would likely be upset when it turned out I had a Stayman type hand, or an invitational hand with 5 spades, or any of the other hands I could have. But like your 1NT-2♠ forcing opener to rebid 3♣, partner here is forced to bid 2♦ (and we frequently pass!) So what you get instead is "to play 2♦ or various INV or better hands".
"The opponents are entitled to your agreement, not the contents of your hand" is true - but they are entitled to your agreement, and you must give it in a way that does not mislead them.
[below]Common bridge terms for these kinds of bids:
Calling a Puppet bid a Transfer causes many problems. Using the term Relay used to cause problems, but hopefully with the changes in regulations the fear is no longer warranted.
If your bid does not show a specific suit, then it is not a transfer. It might be many other things (see below), but it is not a transfer. If it is a transfer, then you should have no concerns telling the opponent which suit you are transferring to.
This is something that (at least in the ACBL) is commonly misunderstood, and leads to situations like this. It's also the reason that (prior to 2021) the only bids that were Announced "transfer" were, after a natural NT opening (or strong bid-response-natural NT "opening") red suit bids that promised the next major suit up. The 1NT-2♠ sequence was always Alerted, even if it promised a club suit. But nobody understood that, so whatever relay-to-minor they were playing they would Announce "transfer", or explain it as a transfer after the Alert was asked about. Even if it was minor-suit Stayman, but especially if it was "weak or GF with either minor". And the players who might have wanted to bid 3♣, or were waiting to defend 3♣, were - understandably - upset when it turned out that "oh, if she corrects, it's diamonds". So after one or two of those, they learn to ask.
Now, of course, in ACBL tournaments, (and frankly it's reasonable anywhere self-alerts happen) you just name the suit you're showing and the word "transfer" isn't used. This is good for those of use who transfer to not the next suit up, and who use transfers in other than NT auctions. This also makes things make more sense for the people who thought they were "transferring" but now feel "why should I tell you this round which suit?" If you can't, Alert and explain that (as morecharac said, a good description is "weak or strong in ♣ or ♦", or "to play 3 of a minor" or "looking for a 4-4 minor fit" or whatever it is your agreement actually is). Again, it's "what hands bid this?", not "which one is it this time?"
As a counterexample, I play Keri. If I explained 1NT-2♣ as "transfer", you would likely be upset when it turned out I had a Stayman type hand, or an invitational hand with 5 spades, or any of the other hands I could have. But like your 1NT-2♠ forcing opener to rebid 3♣, partner here is forced to bid 2♦ (and we frequently pass!) So what you get instead is "to play 2♦ or various INV or better hands".
"The opponents are entitled to your agreement, not the contents of your hand" is true - but they are entitled to your agreement, and you must give it in a way that does not mislead them.
[below]Common bridge terms for these kinds of bids:
- Relay: a bid (usually of the cheapest suit) that says nothing about the players hand, but asks for further description from partner.
- Transfer: shows a specific suit (usually the next one), and expects partner to bid it.
- Puppet: a bid that forces partner to make (usually the cheapest) bid, but which says nothing - necessarily - about holding that bid. Partner can pass, but can bid on to show different hands.
- Marionette: (rare) a puppet that partner can ignore under certain circumstances.
Calling a Puppet bid a Transfer causes many problems. Using the term Relay used to cause problems, but hopefully with the changes in regulations the fear is no longer warranted.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#6
- Group: Members
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 2020-August-04
Posted 2021-February-03, 11:11
I sure opened up something. Where we play 1nt-2♠means to transfer to clubs. 1nt -♣means to transfer to diamonds.
Just like the opp who thought everyone knew what a limit raise is.
As far as reading the rules, no i don't spend time doing that but when there is a change , as i was told, it should be announced. Right after i posted my comment, there was an email from acbl speaksy. That explained it. It would be nice if that was always the case in a change. Tks for your comments.
Just like the opp who thought everyone knew what a limit raise is.
As far as reading the rules, no i don't spend time doing that but when there is a change , as i was told, it should be announced. Right after i posted my comment, there was an email from acbl speaksy. That explained it. It would be nice if that was always the case in a change. Tks for your comments.
#7
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,429
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2021-February-03, 11:29
So, you know it means clubs. When they ask "what suit", you say "clubs", of course. What is the issue?
Your requirements per system are to:
You can see from several of the responses that the opponent is likely to have been trapped before and assumed clubs when in fact it was "clubs, or diamonds if partner corrects". If you didn't know about these systems, well now you do, for when it happens to you. So he finds out. That is his right.
Yes, there are new ACBL rules from Jan 1 2021. They say you announce the suit, if you show a suit, so now it goes 1NT-2♠ "clubs". But the old rules, same since 2000, were 1NT-2♠ "Alert". When asked, "shows clubs". At no point was the word "transfer" necessary to be used, nor should it really have been.
Now at the tables, it was partner who did all of that - because we don't want the bidder telling partner what their bids mean. Online, the bidder does and partner doesn't get to see it until after the hand's over. So there can be a feeling of "why do I have to tell the opponents what I have?" But it's not that - and you don't have to; what you have to do is what you had to do for your partner in face-to-face play, tell the opponents what your bids mean.
Your requirements per system are to:
- play something legal in your game, and
- ensure that your opponents understand what your bids mean.
You can see from several of the responses that the opponent is likely to have been trapped before and assumed clubs when in fact it was "clubs, or diamonds if partner corrects". If you didn't know about these systems, well now you do, for when it happens to you. So he finds out. That is his right.
Yes, there are new ACBL rules from Jan 1 2021. They say you announce the suit, if you show a suit, so now it goes 1NT-2♠ "clubs". But the old rules, same since 2000, were 1NT-2♠ "Alert". When asked, "shows clubs". At no point was the word "transfer" necessary to be used, nor should it really have been.
Now at the tables, it was partner who did all of that - because we don't want the bidder telling partner what their bids mean. Online, the bidder does and partner doesn't get to see it until after the hand's over. So there can be a feeling of "why do I have to tell the opponents what I have?" But it's not that - and you don't have to; what you have to do is what you had to do for your partner in face-to-face play, tell the opponents what your bids mean.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#8
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 617
- Joined: 2019-October-14
Posted 2021-February-03, 11:47
Relay: a bid (usually of the cheapest suit) that says nothing about the players hand, but asks for further description from partner.
Here is something I've wondered a long time. What if the "relay" bid says *something* about your hand but not much?
Hypothetical sequence: 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ saying "normally no 6-card suit or 5-5. tell me more"
The "normally" is to give you an out with Qxxxxx or the like.
Does that have some other name?
Here is something I've wondered a long time. What if the "relay" bid says *something* about your hand but not much?
Hypothetical sequence: 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ saying "normally no 6-card suit or 5-5. tell me more"
The "normally" is to give you an out with Qxxxxx or the like.
Does that have some other name?
#9
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,429
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2021-February-03, 12:03
Well, most relays don't say "nothing", they say "I don't want to not relay". Even in full relay systems, where once a relay sequence is started, 99% of the time it continues to [some fixed point], and may continue on from there through [other points], the relay at least says "I don't have the hand that can fix the contract with current knowledge, and I don't have the very rare hands that would want to break relay". Others are better theoreticians than I, but I hear "bid that is 90% 'more info, please', but there's some information there" called "relay".
Of course, things are called relays that are other things, too, like the Kokish Relay, which is actually a Marionette (2♣-2♦; 2♥ "hearts or strong balanced; please bid 2♠ so I can clarify", but partner is allowed to show a very specific hand that more often than not supersedes what opener is doing (in my agreement, a very bad hand with a long suit that will likely play better in that suit than whatever opener would be aiming for).) Which is annoying.
Of course, things are called relays that are other things, too, like the Kokish Relay, which is actually a Marionette (2♣-2♦; 2♥ "hearts or strong balanced; please bid 2♠ so I can clarify", but partner is allowed to show a very specific hand that more often than not supersedes what opener is doing (in my agreement, a very bad hand with a long suit that will likely play better in that suit than whatever opener would be aiming for).) Which is annoying.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#10
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 737
- Joined: 2015-November-14
Posted 2021-February-04, 13:17
Director was absolutely right on both counts.
There WAS a rules change in the ACBL, and BBO goes by ACBL rules.
Previously, if you bid a suit that was a transfer showing one specific suit, you (in online bridge) or your partner (in F2F bridge) just said "transfer." NOT "Alert" as someone above stated. "Transfer." That was changed. Now, if a bid is a transfer showing a specific suit, you say the suit.
Thus:
1NT-2♦ as a transfer to hearts: Say "hearts" (or better, "transfer to hearts")
If, however, your bid can have more than one meaning, you do NOT say transfer or the suit. You alert the bid instead and explain your agreement.
Thus:
1NT - 2♠ range finder or clubs: You Alert and explain the bid as "range finder or clubs"
1NT - 2♠ showing clubs or diamonds: You Alert and explain "clubs or diamonds." If more is known about the bid, you state that as well. Thus, if it's always a weak hand, you say that, too.
1NT - 2NT showing diamonds (unspecified strength) OR a weak hand with both minors: Alert and say "diamonds (any strength) OR weak with both minors."
In terms of the limit raise, no alert was required, but when you asked him about it, he is required to tell you his agreement regarding that bid. You can always ask an opponent about any bid you aren't sure about, even if it doesn't require an alert. They are required to tell you what their agreement is regarding that bid. For example:
1♠-2♠-3♦
3♦ does not require an alert so long as your agreement is that you have at least 3 cards in diamonds and aren't showing or denying any other suit. But does 3♦ suggest some cards in that suit? Or does it show fear of diamond losers and asks for help? That might be useful to know, and you are entitled to ask the opponent what his agreement is.
Cheers,
Mike
There WAS a rules change in the ACBL, and BBO goes by ACBL rules.
Previously, if you bid a suit that was a transfer showing one specific suit, you (in online bridge) or your partner (in F2F bridge) just said "transfer." NOT "Alert" as someone above stated. "Transfer." That was changed. Now, if a bid is a transfer showing a specific suit, you say the suit.
Thus:
1NT-2♦ as a transfer to hearts: Say "hearts" (or better, "transfer to hearts")
If, however, your bid can have more than one meaning, you do NOT say transfer or the suit. You alert the bid instead and explain your agreement.
Thus:
1NT - 2♠ range finder or clubs: You Alert and explain the bid as "range finder or clubs"
1NT - 2♠ showing clubs or diamonds: You Alert and explain "clubs or diamonds." If more is known about the bid, you state that as well. Thus, if it's always a weak hand, you say that, too.
1NT - 2NT showing diamonds (unspecified strength) OR a weak hand with both minors: Alert and say "diamonds (any strength) OR weak with both minors."
In terms of the limit raise, no alert was required, but when you asked him about it, he is required to tell you his agreement regarding that bid. You can always ask an opponent about any bid you aren't sure about, even if it doesn't require an alert. They are required to tell you what their agreement is regarding that bid. For example:
1♠-2♠-3♦
3♦ does not require an alert so long as your agreement is that you have at least 3 cards in diamonds and aren't showing or denying any other suit. But does 3♦ suggest some cards in that suit? Or does it show fear of diamond losers and asks for help? That might be useful to know, and you are entitled to ask the opponent what his agreement is.
Cheers,
Mike
#11
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,429
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2021-February-04, 14:19
miamijd, on 2021-February-04, 13:17, said:
There WAS a rules change in the ACBL, and BBO goes by ACBL rules.
Quote
Previously, if you bid a suit that was a transfer showing one specific suit, you (in online bridge) or your partner (in F2F bridge) just said "transfer." NOT "Alert" as someone above stated. "Transfer."
ACBL Pre-2021 Alert Procedure said:
Announcements are required in the following instances: [...] After a ♦ or ♥ transfer response at any level to any level natural notrump opening, overcall or rebid.
This also sometimes differed when it wasn't the next suit, so: 1NT-4♦ "Transfer" if it showed hearts, but "Alert" if it showed spades.
miamijd said:
That was changed. Now, if a bid is a transfer showing a specific suit, you say the suit.
2021+ ACBL Alert Procedure said:
Announce the following agreements: [...] Any Artificial bid that primarily shows Length in one specific suit and any double or redouble that shows Length in the next higher suit. Use the name of the suit being shown as the announcement. This does not apply to suits in which you or your Partner have already shown Length.
[further quotes trimmed, read them. they're useful both in statement and thinking.]
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,911
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2021-February-04, 14:28
mycroft, on 2021-February-02, 23:13, said:
Common bridge terms for these kinds of bids:
Calling a Puppet bid a Transfer causes many problems. Using the term Relay used to cause problems, but hopefully with the changes in regulations the fear is no longer warranted.
- Relay: a bid (usually of the cheapest suit) that says nothing about the players hand, but asks for further description from partner.
- Transfer: shows a specific suit (usually the next one), and expects partner to bid it.
- Puppet: a bid that forces partner to make (usually the cheapest) bid, but which says nothing - necessarily - about holding that bid. Partner can pass, but can bid on to show different hands.
- Marionette: (rare) a puppet that partner can ignore under certain circumstances.
Calling a Puppet bid a Transfer causes many problems. Using the term Relay used to cause problems, but hopefully with the changes in regulations the fear is no longer warranted.
Many wise things said in this thread and your post, but I'm not happy with this list.
Transfer: I would say "expects partner to usually bid it". And I'm not particularly happy with either "transfer to <suit>" or just "<suit>", because the opponents have a right to know if and when partner might not complete the transfer as expected."Transfer to 2♥ but she will bid 3♥ with 4 card support and any strength" is the way to go for me.
Puppet: for me it is always the next one and partner can not pass or bid on under certain circumstances (that is a Marionette).
Calling a Puppet bid a Transfer: a Puppet bid is rarely a Transfer, but can be (a traditional Transfer to the next suit with no super-accept). If anything, it is calling that same Transfer a Puppet that might be considered misleading (as it distracts attention from the purpose of the sequence and is usually a Marionette in any case).
#13
- Secretary Bird
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,429
- Joined: 2003-July-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16
Posted 2021-February-04, 15:28
The key is not the response, it's what the bids show. Transfers promise a suit; Puppets do not (it's usually a possibility, but they don't promise it).
Yes, there's a "usually" in there for transfer bids, but from the point of view of explaining to the opponents (which is what's important in this thread), you still promise that suit. That's why I was never comfortable with the loophole in the old ACBL Alert Procedures where 1NT-2♦ was "hearts, or the start of certain GF sequences" and still announced "Transfer". But since I never played or directed in a game where someone was playing that, it never affected me or my players.
One of my guiding lights with disclosure is "tell 'em what partner's bid shows, not what you're going to do." FtF, there's an issue with reminding partner of the responses; but even with self-alerts, the fact that it "forces 2♥" (or not, depending) isn't relevant, it's "I have hearts". Same thing with "what's 4NT?" (another question that should go away with the new ACBL procedures, once everyone is comfortable with the fact that the responses will be explained before the opening lead, because they're Delayed Alertable). If you respond "1430", you're telling partner what your bid means, and it doesn't tell the opponents what her bid means. Of course, people get upset with "keycard ask for hearts", because what they want to know is "which response scheme are you using?" in which case, don't ask about 4NT, you know what it means.
What that means is that if they want to know if you had options over 1NT-2♦, they can ask if we do bid 2♥; if we don't, then it's kind of obvious. With your agreement (something similar to which I play with one person), I used to Alert 2♥ as "denies 4 hearts" under the "unusual treatment" clause. Not sure if I still should, but I can't see it going awry.
One of my favourite stories about this; the auction went 1NT (12-14)-(2♣!). Partner asks, and is told "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[1] It didn't happen, but I really wanted her to double, so I could Alert that and explain it as "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[2] Let them see how useless the explanation is, as well as how bad telling partner what you're going to do is.
[1]: They were playing Calgary's Modified Cappelletti, so it showed diamonds, or a major-minor hand.
[2]: We were playing Keri, and systems on over 2♣ overcall no matter what it shows, so she showed weak diamonds, or a large number of INV or GF hands to be named later.
Yes, there's a "usually" in there for transfer bids, but from the point of view of explaining to the opponents (which is what's important in this thread), you still promise that suit. That's why I was never comfortable with the loophole in the old ACBL Alert Procedures where 1NT-2♦ was "hearts, or the start of certain GF sequences" and still announced "Transfer". But since I never played or directed in a game where someone was playing that, it never affected me or my players.
One of my guiding lights with disclosure is "tell 'em what partner's bid shows, not what you're going to do." FtF, there's an issue with reminding partner of the responses; but even with self-alerts, the fact that it "forces 2♥" (or not, depending) isn't relevant, it's "I have hearts". Same thing with "what's 4NT?" (another question that should go away with the new ACBL procedures, once everyone is comfortable with the fact that the responses will be explained before the opening lead, because they're Delayed Alertable). If you respond "1430", you're telling partner what your bid means, and it doesn't tell the opponents what her bid means. Of course, people get upset with "keycard ask for hearts", because what they want to know is "which response scheme are you using?" in which case, don't ask about 4NT, you know what it means.
What that means is that if they want to know if you had options over 1NT-2♦, they can ask if we do bid 2♥; if we don't, then it's kind of obvious. With your agreement (something similar to which I play with one person), I used to Alert 2♥ as "denies 4 hearts" under the "unusual treatment" clause. Not sure if I still should, but I can't see it going awry.
One of my favourite stories about this; the auction went 1NT (12-14)-(2♣!). Partner asks, and is told "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[1] It didn't happen, but I really wanted her to double, so I could Alert that and explain it as "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[2] Let them see how useless the explanation is, as well as how bad telling partner what you're going to do is.
[1]: They were playing Calgary's Modified Cappelletti, so it showed diamonds, or a major-minor hand.
[2]: We were playing Keri, and systems on over 2♣ overcall no matter what it shows, so she showed weak diamonds, or a large number of INV or GF hands to be named later.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,911
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2021-February-04, 16:09
mycroft, on 2021-February-04, 15:28, said:
The key is not the response, it's what the bids show. Transfers promise a suit; Puppets do not (it's usually a possibility, but they don't promise it).
Yes, there's a "usually" in there for transfer bids, but from the point of view of explaining to the opponents (which is what's important in this thread), you still promise that suit. That's why I was never comfortable with the loophole in the old ACBL Alert Procedures where 1NT-2♦ was "hearts, or the start of certain GF sequences" and still announced "Transfer". But since I never played or directed in a game where someone was playing that, it never affected me or my players.
One of my guiding lights with disclosure is "tell 'em what partner's bid shows, not what you're going to do." FtF, there's an issue with reminding partner of the responses; but even with self-alerts, the fact that it "forces 2♥" (or not, depending) isn't relevant, it's "I have hearts". Same thing with "what's 4NT?" (another question that should go away with the new ACBL procedures, once everyone is comfortable with the fact that the responses will be explained before the opening lead, because they're Delayed Alertable). If you respond "1430", you're telling partner what your bid means, and it doesn't tell the opponents what her bid means. Of course, people get upset with "keycard ask for hearts", because what they want to know is "which response scheme are you using?" in which case, don't ask about 4NT, you know what it means.
What that means is that if they want to know if you had options over 1NT-2♦, they can ask if we do bid 2♥; if we don't, then it's kind of obvious. With your agreement (something similar to which I play with one person), I used to Alert 2♥ as "denies 4 hearts" under the "unusual treatment" clause. Not sure if I still should, but I can't see it going awry.
One of my favourite stories about this; the auction went 1NT (12-14)-(2♣!). Partner asks, and is told "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[1] It didn't happen, but I really wanted her to double, so I could Alert that and explain it as "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[2] Let them see how useless the explanation is, as well as how bad telling partner what you're going to do is.
[1]: They were playing Calgary's Modified Cappelletti, so it showed diamonds, or a major-minor hand.
[2]: We were playing Keri, and systems on over 2♣ overcall no matter what it shows, so she showed weak diamonds, or a large number of INV or GF hands to be named later.
Yes, there's a "usually" in there for transfer bids, but from the point of view of explaining to the opponents (which is what's important in this thread), you still promise that suit. That's why I was never comfortable with the loophole in the old ACBL Alert Procedures where 1NT-2♦ was "hearts, or the start of certain GF sequences" and still announced "Transfer". But since I never played or directed in a game where someone was playing that, it never affected me or my players.
One of my guiding lights with disclosure is "tell 'em what partner's bid shows, not what you're going to do." FtF, there's an issue with reminding partner of the responses; but even with self-alerts, the fact that it "forces 2♥" (or not, depending) isn't relevant, it's "I have hearts". Same thing with "what's 4NT?" (another question that should go away with the new ACBL procedures, once everyone is comfortable with the fact that the responses will be explained before the opening lead, because they're Delayed Alertable). If you respond "1430", you're telling partner what your bid means, and it doesn't tell the opponents what her bid means. Of course, people get upset with "keycard ask for hearts", because what they want to know is "which response scheme are you using?" in which case, don't ask about 4NT, you know what it means.
What that means is that if they want to know if you had options over 1NT-2♦, they can ask if we do bid 2♥; if we don't, then it's kind of obvious. With your agreement (something similar to which I play with one person), I used to Alert 2♥ as "denies 4 hearts" under the "unusual treatment" clause. Not sure if I still should, but I can't see it going awry.
One of my favourite stories about this; the auction went 1NT (12-14)-(2♣!). Partner asks, and is told "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[1] It didn't happen, but I really wanted her to double, so I could Alert that and explain it as "she wants me to bid 2♦, so she can describe her hand."[2] Let them see how useless the explanation is, as well as how bad telling partner what you're going to do is.
[1]: They were playing Calgary's Modified Cappelletti, so it showed diamonds, or a major-minor hand.
[2]: We were playing Keri, and systems on over 2♣ overcall no matter what it shows, so she showed weak diamonds, or a large number of INV or GF hands to be named later.
With you 100% in spirit.
If you played in Turin, you would love the old-timers that open 1♣ without alert and (if pressed) crossly explain it as "preparatory". Which (not thanks to them) you would come to understand as 12-19, possibly clubs but never a minor 2-suit, could also be balanced in 1NT range with no 4-card major or any 16+ independent of shape.
As for Puppet and Marionette, I concede that sources differ about which is more rigid. From reading here and BW I concluded that the consensus was for Puppet being rigid and Marionette lax (so the original Puppet Stayman is technically a Marionette if one can show a 5-card major), but I'm happy to be corrected.
#15
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,594
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2021-February-05, 09:31
pescetom, on 2021-February-04, 14:28, said:
Many wise things said in this thread and your post, but I'm not happy with this list.
Transfer: I would say "expects partner to usually bid it".
Transfer: I would say "expects partner to usually bid it".
I think that's implicit in the word "expects" -- it's what distinguishes it from "requires" or "demands".
Sometimes when you expect something to happen, it doesn't. This could be disappointing, but it could also be a happy surprise. A super-accept could be either: if you transferred with a bust, you may end up too high, but if you had a borderline invite it could help you reach a makeable game you wouldn't have bid otherwise.
All that said, most players are not really cognizant of the nuanced language in mycroft's list. I think you would get quizzical looks from at least 95% if you used the term "mariotnette". And lots of players use the term "relay to X" when they mean "puppet to X"; there's no confusion because the prepositional phrase makes it clear that it's not the asking bid that a simple "relay" implies.
The problem ACBL is trying to solve with their new rule is with the way many players use 2♠ response to 1NT. If you're playing 4-way transfers, it specifically shows clubs. But if you're playing more traditional Jacoby transfers, you bid it with either clubs or diamonds; it asks opener to bid clubs, and you correct to diamonds if that was your suit. Many players were (incorrectly) announcing "Transfer" in the latter case, because they thought the announcement applied to the whole convention, not specific bids with specific meanings. The new rule is easier: when a bid shows a specific suit other than the one being bid, you simply state the suit. And since transfer bids have become popular in other contexts (transfer responses to 1♣, transfer advances after overcalls), it also generalized easily.
Page 1 of 1