[dake50]

The ACBL GCC lists xfer advances in 'Competitive' allowed.
What is the GCC legality of the same method in competition BUT by opener's partner?
Or expanded 4-suits xfers? GCC?
or GCC only after 1NT, 1C(Force), 1D(Force), 2C openers and what others?

[rbforster]

There is no provision that specifically allows arbitrary conventional bids in competition under GCC. However, in many cases these are allowed - such as after an intervening double, over partner's or overcaller's 1NT bid, or an intervening conventional bid. In addition, any double, any bid showing game forcing values, or any bid after a strong opening by partner can be conventional.

But for auctions like 1X-(1Y) or 1X-(2Y) where X and Y are different suits, I think using transfers or similar methods are midchart ("any call showing a known 4+ suit") but not GCC.

[paulg]

Rob F, on Aug 12 2007, 03:00 AM, said:

There is no provision that specifically allows arbitrary conventional bids in competition under GCC.  However, in many cases these are allowed - such as after an intervening double, over partner's or overcaller's 1NT bid, or an intervening conventional bid.  In addition, any double, any bid showing game forcing values, or any bid after a strong opening by partner can be conventional. 

Probably correct but a little unfair. In its last major change the EBU resolved such issues where essentially the same methods were legal by one pair and not the other, perhaps the ACBL will do so in its next iteration.

Quote

But for auctions like 1X-(1Y) or 1X-(2Y) where X and Y are different suits, I think using transfers or similar methods are midchart ("any call showing a known 4+ suit") but not GCC.

In Mid Chart, the "any call showing a known 4+ suit" will need a defense registered, so I prefer to use the "all constructive rebids and responses are permitted ..." clause which does not require the defense database.

[helene_t]

"Showing 4+ in a known suit" is better defined than "constructive". Maybe this is comparing apples to oranges but still .....

[paulg]

helene_t, on Aug 12 2007, 09:23 AM, said:

"Showing 4+ in a known suit" is better defined than "constructive". Maybe this is comparing apples to oranges but still .....

True, but the ACBL still requires a defence to be approved by the Committee before any method can be used where "showing 4+ cards in a known suit" is the clause that makes it (Mid Chart) legal. This is not required for a constructive rebid or response.

As others have noted, defence approval can be difficult to obtain.