[Chris3875]

We know that a transfer bid is alertable but what about when the transfer has been accepted. e.g. 1NT - 2H - 2S. This is a simple acceptance, not showing any particular strength or length in the suit.

[mrdct]

Chris3875, on 2011-November-09, 00:47, said:

We know that a transfer bid is alertable but what about when the transfer has been accepted. e.g. 1NT - 2H - 2S. This is a simple acceptance, not showing any particular strength or length in the suit.

The acceptance of the transfer is only alertable if it says something about strength or shape. Most commonly, if you play super-accepts and the acceptance of the transfer denies a super-accept you need to alert it. Reference: ABF Alerting Regs 4.2.

[Chris3875]

OK mrdct - this answer could be worth $10 to me. If you play just a normal, simple, basic system and your partner bids 2H after your 1NT and you accept the transfer by bidding 2S - does the 2S have to be alerted?

[barmar]

What jurisdiction? Alert requirements are set by RAs.

No alert is required in ACBL, even if you have superaccept options. ACBL generally doesn't require you to alert bids that have extra meaning due to negative inferences from not choosing some other bid.

[Chris3875]

Australia

[Mbodell]

This likely depends on your location. Assuming you are asking about Australia, I assume mrdct is giving you the right answer. In some places it may need to be alerted. If you are self alerting (like behind screens or online) it may also be different then if you are at the table. But AFAIK the places I'm familiar with you don't need to alert this. I play in the ACBL so my judgement is based on that experience.

It is a little weird as it isn't fully consistent with other situations like kokish relay and/or keri and/or capp.

In koskish relay a heart bid after a strong forcing auction typically shows either hearts or a very strong balanced hand and forces a spade response (some pairs have agreed breaks, but many do not, and the breaks are as rare as super-accepts in a transfer). I alert the spade bid, and most other players do, and I think that is right. So auctions are either 1♣! (strong) - 1♦! (weak) - 1♥! (kokish, ♥ or v.strong balanced) - 1♠! (forced) OR 2♣ (strong artificial, not alerted in ACBL) - 2♦! (many possible agreements, alertable if game forcing) - 2♥! (Kokish) - 2♠! (forced).

In keri a bid of 2♣ over partner's 1nt is basically 98+% forcing of 2♦ (the only non-2♦ response is a super-accept of 3♦ when you have a super max with long 1-suited diamonds, very similar to a transfer), but I've always alerted and felt you need to alert the forced 2♦ response.

In capp a bid of 2♣ (alertable) over the opponents 1nt bid shows a single unspecified long suit and some people play it forces partner to bid 2♦ (if opponents pass 2♣) so the 2♣ bidder can reveal their suit (passing if it is diamonds). Really responder should be able to show their own long suit, especially a major by bidding 2M, but many pairs don't play with this agreement, and even when you do it is a pretty rare occurrence, so the 2♦ is similarly near forced by the 2♣.

So all of these auctions tend to get alerts (although people in my experience are inconsistent with the capp 2♦ alert) even though they are very like the transfer situation. One thing that might guide it in some places is if the bid shows a willingness to play the contract specified. This isn't true in the Kokish case, but is true in the transfers, keri, and capp cases. In the ACBL a difference that may make the transfer case make more sense now is that transfers are generally announced, so the opponents "know" what is going on. Where in the other auctions the preceding call are alerted and opponents may decide not to ask about the alerted bid, and then be surprised if the forced follow on is not alerted and wasn't natural.

[barmar]

I think the difference between acceptance of a transfer and the forced bids that Mbodell listed is that the transfer acceptance is kind of "natural" -- it's a suit that is being suggested as trumps, although by the trasferrer, not tranferee, and partner may pass it to play there. Contrast that with the ♠ bid in Kokish, which is just a forced temporizing bid, there's no suggestion that either partner is interested in a ♠ contract.

[Mbodell]

barmar, on 2011-November-09, 03:36, said:

I think the difference between acceptance of a transfer and the forced bids that Mbodell listed is that the transfer acceptance is kind of "natural" -- it's a suit that is being suggested as trumps, although by the trasferrer, not tranferee, and partner may pass it to play there. Contrast that with the ♠ bid in Kokish, which is just a forced temporizing bid, there's no suggestion that either partner is interested in a ♠ contract.

In Keri and capp it is "natural" in that it is an offer to play there, all be it one that is only taken up around 30% of the time or so. But yeah, I agree it isn't exactly the same.

[barmar]

Yes, I was thinking the same thing about pass/correct bids -- they can be passed, so they're an offer to play there. But there's no PRIOR information suggesting that either player has something in that suit, it's just happenstance (in DONT, the only thing the pass/correct bids suggest is that their holdings in the the higher suits are at least as good as overcaller's bid suit).

[bluejak]

ABF alerting regulations.

Quote

4.2 Transfers in response to partner’s NT

The transfer bid is alertable. Acceptance of the transfer, whether or not after interference, is alertable if it conveys any meaning relating to hand strength or length in partner’s shown suit.

So if you play accepts [why "super-accepts"?] then the completion is alertable, if you do not it is not.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-09, 09:07, said:

ABF alerting regulations.

So if you play accepts [why "super-accepts"?] then the completion is alertable, if you do not it is not.

If the 1NT opener always accepts the transfer regardless of shape and/or strength, completion of the transfer is not alertable in Australia (the jurisdiction stated in the OP). Completion of a transfer is only alertable in Australia where there is a negative inference available from the fact that the 1NT opener has not super-accepted or if the partnership agreement is such that accepting the transfer promises certain length in the transferor's suit (e.g. some people who use 2♠ as a transfer to ♣ will bid 2NT without ♣ support and 3♣ with ♣ support - both of which would be alertable in Australia).

[bluejak]

I am curious, mrdct: why have you just repeated what I have said?

As for "the jurisdiction stated in the OP" I think it is fairly clear I knew that by quoting the ABF regulations rather than the ACBL, EBU, WBU or anyone else's.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-09, 19:38, said:

I am curious, mrdct: why have you just repeated what I have said?

I was responding to your query, why "super-accepts"? and correcting your erroneous statement in which you opined that, "... if you play accepts ... then the completion is alertable, if you do not it is not". In the ABF you only alert acceptance of a transfer if you have an agreement to play super-accepts.

bluejak, on 2011-November-09, 19:38, said:

As for "the jurisdiction stated in the OP" I think it is fairly clear I knew that by quoting the ABF regulations rather than the ACBL, EBU, WBU or anyone else's.

That was just providing some clarity for earlier poster who had expressed some confusion as to the jurisdiction.

[barmar]

I think his "why super-accepts" was meant to inquire why they're called "super", i.e. if you play that style, we should call the ordinary completion just "completions", and transfer breaks would be called "accepts".

But jargon and idiom aren't always logical. We have things like "Two-way New Minor Forcing", but in most cases one of the minors isn't actually new (which is why some call it "Two-way Checkback").

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-November-09, 19:53, said:

I was responding to your query, why "super-accepts"? and correcting your erroneous statement in which you opined that, "... if you play accepts ... then the completion is alertable, if you do not it is not". In the ABF you only alert acceptance of a transfer if you have an agreement to play super-accepts.

Which is exactly what I said!

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-November-10, 19:00, said:

Which is exactly what I said!

As barmar has alluded to, in my part of world there is a radical difference between "accept" which says nothing extra about your hand and "super-accept" which explicitly promises primary support and in some cases other extra information as to strength and/or shape. Hence my disgreement with your suggestion that if you play "accepts" an alert is required.

[mjj29]

mrdct, on 2011-November-10, 21:39, said:

As barmar has alluded to, in my part of world there is a radical difference between "accept" which says nothing extra about your hand and "super-accept" which explicitly promises primary support and in some cases other extra information as to strength and/or shape. Hence my disgreement with your suggestion that if you play "accepts" an alert is required.

Whether bidding 2H over a 2D transfer is 'accepting' the transfer or whether breaking is 'accepting' is terminology that seems to vary. I've taken to referring to 'breaking the transfer' as an unambiguous term.

For clarity, it seems that if after your partner bids 2D to transfer to hearts, if you would always bid 2H, then it's not alertable. If certain hands would make some other bid (say, when you have 4 card support), then 2H is alertable as it denies one of those hands.

Incidentally, the same is true in the EBU, although I think you have to break on _all_ 4 card support hands, rather than just maximums, for it to make 2H alertable.

[Cyberyeti]

mjj29, on 2011-November-11, 02:55, said:

Incidentally, the same is true in the EBU, although I think you have to break on _all_ 4 card support hands, rather than just maximums, for it to make 2H alertable.

If it is then literally nobody has ever alerted one of these in my experience, so it is something that needs more publicity. We break on everything except minimum 4333s with 4 card support, does that require an alert ?

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2011-November-11, 02:55, said:

Incidentally, the same is true in the EBU, although I think you have to break on _all_ 4 card support hands, rather than just maximums, for it to make 2H alertable.

OB5B2f said:

The completion of a transfer that denies four card support (which is shown by
some other bid) [is alertable], since this shows something specific.

Cyberyeti, on 2011-November-11, 04:41, said:

If it is then literally nobody has ever alerted one of these in my experience, so it is something that needs more publicity.

Maybe nobody plays it. This is not a terribly popular treatment in England.

Quote

We break on everything except minimum 4333s with 4 card support, does that require an alert ?

I would translate "essentially denies" as "denies" and would alert.

[barmar]

Around here (ACBL territory), most people only super-accept with max HCP and 4-card support. So normal completion is the norm, and only denies this exceptional case. I can't recall anyone ever alerting the normal completion. ACBL's alerting rules say you generally don't have to alert negative inferences based on the fact that you could have made some other call.

And if the only super-accept you play is a jump in the suit being transferred to, no one alerts that, either -- it's considered "just bridge". The only time people alert their super-accepts is when they use an artificial bid for it (e.g. bidding the next step up) or they have multiple ways to super-accept (e.g. bidding a suit with a doubleton).