[mjj29]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-03, 11:08, said:

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".

Indeed, if it doesn't necessarily have hearts (by agreement), then it doesn't show hearts, even if responder will always make a bid catering for hearts being the option.

That would be like describing 2C (weak 2 in diamonds or an Acol 2C bid) as 'diamonds' because responder will always bid 2D in case it was a weak 2 in diamonds.

[mycroft]

I would be one of those who says that it's not full disclosure, Ed, if it weren't for the fact that that case (2♦ shows "hearts or some rare hand that may have no hearts") wasn't explicitly in the Alert Procedure as being Announced as Transfer (and the rare case Alerted when discovered).

[barmar]

I play a system where 2♦/♥ responses to 1NT are two-way -- 2♦ shows either ♥ or ♣, 2♥ shows either ♠ or ♦. We always alert them, we don't announce -- the ACBL alert procedure says that announcements are only for normal transfers to the majors. I explain them as "Usually a transfer to major, but may be the start of a sequence to transfer to minor." My partner's wording, which I don't like as much, is "Usually a transfer to major, but may be a transfer to minor."

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2012-May-03, 12:09, said:

I would be one of those who says that it's not full disclosure, Ed, if it weren't for the fact that that case (2♦ shows "hearts or some rare hand that may have no hearts") wasn't explicitly in the Alert Procedure as being Announced as Transfer (and the rare case Alerted when discovered).

Hm. So it does. I guess I don't agree with Stefanie after all. Sorry, Stef.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-May-03, 12:29, said:

I play a system where 2♦/♥ responses to 1NT are two-way -- 2♦ shows either ♥ or ♣, 2♥ shows either ♠ or ♦. We always alert them, we don't announce -- the ACBL alert procedure says that announcements are only for normal transfers to the majors. I explain them as "Usually a transfer to major, but may be the start of a sequence to transfer to minor." My partner's wording, which I don't like as much, is "Usually a transfer to major, but may be a transfer to minor."

Are these hands game going?

[mycroft]

I would Alert Barry's "transfers", because the "non-heart" case is "not rare". I don't Alert my Keri 2♥ (although I do Alert the 2♠ continuation that "could be, in fact usually is, only 4 hearts" (not full disclosure, but the reason I'm Alerting it. Obviously when they ask, I give everything) because it fits the "rare" philosophy in the Procedure, and I do in fact have hearts (just fewer than most would expect).

Looking at that section again, maybe I'm not as on firm ground as I like - as our "exception" is INV, not GF. Having said that, we *do* in fact promise (4 of) the suit, even in this case. But National TDs have agreed with my logic when I asked as a player, so until I'm told otherwise...

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-03, 15:34, said:

Hm. So it does. I guess I don't agree with Stefanie after all. Sorry, Stef.

That's quite all right with me. I do find the regulation surprising.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-03, 15:35, said:

Are these hands game going?

No, they're the same kinds of hands that most players would transfer with. Why does it matter?

[aguahombre]

 mycroft, on 2012-May-03, 12:09, said:

I would be one of those who says that it's not full disclosure, Ed, if it weren't for the fact that that case (2♦ shows "hearts or some rare hand that may have no hearts") wasn't explicitly in the Alert Procedure as being Announced as Transfer (and the rare case Alerted when discovered).

Just in case anyone might have been confused by an extra negative or two in the above, here is the ACBL wording straight from the Alert Procedures:

(Referring to when an announcement is to be used)

"After a ♦ or ♥ transfer response at any level to any level natural notrump opening, overcall or rebid.

An Announcement also is used for those methods that initially treat the bid as a transfer even though rarely the bidder will have a strong hand without the next higher suit. When the message is sent that the transfer was not a transfer, just the first step in showing another type of game-going hand, the call that sends that message must be Alerted."

From what I read of the above, Barry is right to be alerting his methods. The possibility that 2♦ or 2♥ might actually have a minor suit instead of that major is not rare. And, if it does have a minor instead, it is not strong. Blackshoe's question about whether those hands are game-going was indeed relevant.

[barmar]

Ahh, I see. What the regulation seems to be addressing is the case where the "transfer" is used as a temporizing bid for some rare hands that are otherwise difficult to describe. It seems similar in spirit to not requiring alerts for jump shifts and/or reverses, even though they're sometimes made into fake suits because it's the only way for opener to establish a game force.

This is definitely not the case for my transfer system. I use it just as a more efficient convention than typical 3-way and 4-way transfers, since it leaves 2♠, 2NT, and 3♣ available for other meanings.

[bluejak]

 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 ♣.

They would immediately be stopped. They are not playing transfers, and they are not permitted to use the word transfer in explanation, announcement or description on their SC.

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

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?.

If you play 1NT - 2♦ as a transfer to hearts except in one rare case [usually a 2♠ rebid] then you announce it as "transfer" in the ACBL, but you alert it in England.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 08:09, said:

Barmar said:

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 ♣.

They would immediately be stopped. They are not playing transfers, and they are not permitted to use the word transfer in explanation, announcement or description on their SC.
[...]

First just a technicality: In Norway we announce opening bids (only) in the range 1NT thru 2♠. All other calls are alerted when this is required by regulation.

Many players here alert 2♠ over partner's 1NT opening bid and explain it as "transfer to either minor".

If they include the rebid of 2NT by opener in their system it will similarly be alerted and explained as "he does not have better clubs than diamonds" (or a similar disclosure).

A rebid of 2♣ by opener will similarly be alerted and explained for instance as "pass or correct" (i.e. to diamonds).

I know of nobody who has any problem with that here, would there be any problem with this disclosure in EBU?

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 08:09, said:

They would immediately be stopped. They are not playing transfers, and they are not permitted to use the word transfer in explanation, announcement or description on their SC.

The same way that people who mistakenly announce this as a transfer now are immediately stopped?

[campboy]

 pran, on 2012-May-08, 08:58, said:

Many players here alert 2♠ over partner's 1NT opening bid and explain it as "transfer to either minor".
[...]
I know of nobody who has any problem with that here, would there be any problem with this disclosure in EBU?

IMO it is clear enough that there isn't really a problem. Though it is not a transfer in the strict sense of the word, once you add "either minor" there is nothing else it can mean. Of course, calling it "canoe to either minor" is just as good; it isn't a canoe at all but that should be obvious from the rest of the explanation.

I would discourage an explanation of "transfer to either minor" just in case the player started thinking "transfer" was sufficient. "Canoe to either minor" doesn't have that problem: explaining it just as "canoe" isn't going to mislead anybody.

[barmar]

"canoe"? Is that a bridge term somewhere?

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-May-08, 11:10, said:

"canoe"? Is that a bridge term somewhere?

Yes; so, don't move the thread to the Water Cooler Actually he was just using a word to stress the point that it doesn't matter what you name it if you are explaining it might show either minor.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2012-May-08, 09:54, said:

IMO it is clear enough that there isn't really a problem. Though it is not a transfer in the strict sense of the word, once you add "either minor" there is nothing else it can mean. Of course, calling it "canoe to either minor" is just as good; it isn't a canoe at all but that should be obvious from the rest of the explanation.

I would discourage an explanation of "transfer to either minor" just in case the player started thinking "transfer" was sufficient. "Canoe to either minor" doesn't have that problem: explaining it just as "canoe" isn't going to mislead anybody.

Exactly what is the precise definition of the term "transfer" and where can we find it?
Certainly not in the laws of bridge (except in the context of revoke rectifications).

Without such (legal) definition: If I say "transfer to a minor suit" it means exactly what I want it to mean, and I describe it that way.

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-May-08, 09:40, said:

The same way that people who mistakenly announce this as a transfer now are immediately stopped?

No, because that is not misleading. While the term is meaningless it is unambiguous. We are trying to stop MI not run a course for pedants.

 pran, on 2012-May-08, 15:16, said:

Exactly what is the precise definition of the term "transfer" and where can we find it?
Certainly not in the laws of bridge (except in the context of revoke rectifications).

In the Orange book, of cvourse.

What on earth fdo the Laws of bridge have to do with defining English regulations?

 pran, on 2012-May-08, 15:16, said:

Without such (legal) definition: If I say "transfer to a minor suit" it means exactly what I want it to mean, and I describe it that way.

“When I use a word,” pran said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Be careful you do not fall off the wall.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2012-May-08, 15:16, said:

Exactly what is the precise definition of the term "transfer" and where can we find it?
Certainly not in the laws of bridge (except in the context of revoke rectifications).

Without such (legal) definition: If I say "transfer to a minor suit" it means exactly what I want it to mean, and I describe it that way.

There are a lot of places you can find a definition of "transfer". A dictionary, for starters. IAC, the Humpty Dumpty school of disclosure doesn't impress me much.

If somebody describes to me his partner's 2♠ bid as "a transfer to either minor" I'm pretty sure I understand him, assuming he means "he could have either minor; he wants me to bid clubs". I'm not at all sure that J. Random Novice will have a clue at all. In which case J. Random Minor has been misinformed, according to my understanding of the law.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-08, 15:51, said:

If somebody describes to me his partner's 2♠ bid as "a transfer to either minor" I'm pretty sure I understand him, assuming he means "he could have either minor; he wants me to bid clubs". I'm not at all sure that J. Random Novice will have a clue at all. In which case J. Random Minor has been misinformed, according to my understanding of the law.

I do indeed expect you would.

If J.Random Minor doesn't understand "transfer to either minor" I would expect that he does not at all understand the verb "transfer" in this context and that he would ask what it means. In which case he of course will receive a full and detailed explanation.

However Bluejak seemed to state that a player describing 2♠ as "transfer to either minor" would be immediately stopped (in EBU environment), and so far he hasn't bothered to answer my direct question if that player really would have any such problem.