[bobade]

Playing in an ACBL Speedball tournament we encountered a pair playing transfer responses after a 1C opener. The 1C opener was alerted as 2+ length, but no strength requirement. Is this legal? I called the TD who said it is, but I'd like a second opinion.

Surprisingly, the ACBL position is not so clear from what I can find online, and I would be curious if anyone knows. The responses are not mentioned in the list of GCC or Mid-Chart conventions.

Regardless of the ACBL position, BBO can clearly set its own rules about what conventions or methods are allowed. Are transfer responses to a non-forcing 1C opener allowed on any BBO tournament, or are there restrictions?

Thanks in advance.

Bob

[chasetb]

The ACBL Convention Chart can be murky at times, but it's pretty clear on this issue. If the opponents promise 15+ HCP with their 1♣ opening bid, then #7 under "Responses and Rebids" on the left-hand column on page 1 applies - basically anything they want. If it doesn't promise 15+ HCP, then 1♦ can mean anything, but unless you are making the other bids at the 1-level GF, then they have to be natural.

The Mid-Chart allows transfers over 1♣, period.

[mycroft]

BBO? of course. Play a forcing pass if you like and can get opponents to sit for it - and the tournament organizer is happy with it, if you're in a tournament.

ACBL Speedball? Chase has it right. The 1♣ opener is perfectly legal (provided it guarantees at least 10HCP), but unless it promises 15, they can't play transfer responses to it (after 1♣-p; after 1♣-takeout X, no problem) on the GCC. As far as I remember, ACBL Speedball is GCC.

[Edit: exception: 1♣-1♦ can be hearts no matter what 1♣ shows, but it MUST be unpassable. Having said that, without an ability to bid 1♣-1♥ to show spades, it's not terribly helpful.]

[Bbradley62]

bobade, on 2014-June-26, 00:35, said:

Regardless of the ACBL position, BBO can clearly set its own rules about what conventions or methods are allowed.

Really? Shouldn't ACBL be setting the rules for ACBL-sanctioned games? Or is it like a club game, where the club can say something like "no psyches allowed"?

[hrothgar]

bobade, on 2014-June-26, 00:35, said:

Regardless of the ACBL position, BBO can clearly set its own rules about what conventions or methods are allowed. Are transfer responses to a non-forcing 1C opener allowed on any BBO tournament, or are there restrictions?

"Can" is not the same as "does".

As for "making rules"

[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2014-June-26, 12:03, said:

Really? Shouldn't ACBL be setting the rules for ACBL-sanctioned games? Or is it like a club game, where the club can say something like "no psyches allowed"?

ACBL games on BBO are like club games, and BBO is the club. We call them tourneys, but they're not really.

We can't violate the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, because ACBL requires you to follow them to keep a sanction and award masterpoints, so we can't ban psyches. But we could make our own regulations about allowed conventions and alerting, just like any f2f club can. However, we don't -- the rules for our ACBL games specifically say that the GCC applies.

[uday]

Yep. We use the GCC in the ABCL games on BBO, so xfer responses to a nebulous club are out.

I don't feel strongly about this issue and I'm thinking of playing them myself but until we change our policy, can't use them in acbl games on BBO

Uday

[iamlegend2]

Sometimes a 1D response is used by players who use the short club opener. Not really a transfer, just a waiting bid...... but what was the bidding in your auction? Was it alerted as transfer? if so, then nothing wrong.

[uday]

iamlegend2, on 2014-June-27, 12:30, said:

Was it alerted as transfer? if so, then nothing wrong.

Nothing "wrong" but not GCC compliant, thus not within the list of allowed treatments/conventions for a GCC game like our speedballs.

[steve2005]

It is unfair that precision type people can play anything over 1♣ but standard players only get an artificial 1♦ bid.

If you believe transfers should be allowed over all 1♣ openings in ACBL GCC you can email your voice to

Competition & Conventions candc@acbl.org

[squaty bod]

I always thought this was precision bidding and as long as it is on their cc which should be posted for anyone playing in tournament. I think it is legal. I think BBO can make whatever rules they wish, as we signed a consent when we joined. deborah Bridge RN

[hrothgar]

steve2005, on 2014-June-28, 10:26, said:

It is unfair that precision type people can play anything over 1♣ but standard players only get an artificial 1♦ bid.

If you believe transfers should be allowed over all 1♣ openings in ACBL GCC you can email your voice to

Competition & Conventions candc@acbl.org

10:1 that if they respond, it will be to ban transfers over a Precision club

[helene_t]

steve2005, on 2014-June-28, 10:26, said:

It is unfair that precision type people can play anything over 1♣ but standard players only get an artificial 1♦ bid.

Becuase 1♣ is their strong opening. Standard players can play what they want in response to their 2♣ opening as well.

[bluechip10]

In response to the many 1♣artificial systems, I developed BOSCO (BS over strong club opener or any artificial 1♣bid). Every direct overcall and preempt bid was a transfer; 2 ♣"cue-bid" was transfer to diamonds. All for one suited hands. 1NT was minors. Double showed majors. Strong hands were passed until the artificial bidders revealed their suits. For example:
1♣--P--1♦--P
1♠--DBL DBL is traditional takeout double showing support for all suits except spades. A 2♠ cuebid showed ♥and a minor (Michaels). 2NT showed a strong minor two-suiter. This was fun to play.

Another one was a overcall meant that the caller may or may not have the suit overcalled. My partner and I--many years ago--played Schenken. We were up against the Woolseys, if I recall. They played this system against 1♣ artificial systems. That was tricky too.

[hrothgar]

bluechip10, on 2014-June-28, 17:30, said:

In response to the many 1♣artificial systems, I developed BOSCO (BS over strong club opener or any artificial 1♣bid). Every direct overcall and preempt bid was a transfer; 2 ♣"cue-bid" was transfer to diamonds. All for one suited hands. 1NT was minors. Double showed majors. Strong hands were passed until the artificial bidders revealed their suits. For example:

No offense, but transfer based defenses are DREADFUL

[mycroft]

First they want to be able to treat it as "natural" (which to give the GCC credit, it hasn't, yet), so that they don't have to face the same defensive array as a strong club has. Then they want to be able to do all the things that a strong club can, even though more often than not, it's a weak NT. Once they allow transfers over a "clubs or balanced" 1♣ on the GCC, they'll contest for a change to match the Shanghai ruling, I don't doubt...

And I *approve* of liberalizing the GCC (and this particular liberalization - I'd play it if it were GCC legal, so I could play it every week). What, cynical, me?

Oh, and the "clubs or balanced" crowd have the same options over their 1♣ that their Polish Club compatriots have - which is a much more appropriate comparison than a Strong, Artificial, and Forcing Precision Club opener.