[nielsfoged]

ArtK78, on 2015-February-18, 09:22, said:

It is not SAD and PATHETIC. It just is. You don't have to agree with it. But it is just the way things are.

And it is not completely arbitrary. Since virtually 99% of the ACBL membership would be unfamiliar with dealing with transfer responses to opening bids, a judgment has been made not to allow them. I am sure that arguments have been presented to the ACBL Conventions Committee to allow transfer responses to overcalls, but to date they are not allowed. So deal with it.

I will say that the idea that transfer responses should either be allowed in all situations or in no situations is SAD and PATHETIC. For now, be happy that some transfer responses are allowed.

First, I thought ArtK78 used irony/sarchasm, then when I noticed he didn't, I went to check his profile expecting 78 to be his age, but then I found that he is a tax attorney, which surely explains "It just is - you don't have to agree with it"!
/Niels

[helene_t]

johnu, on 2015-February-18, 14:49, said:

SAD and PATHETIC is just an opinion of that rule. I think some other GCC rules are SAD and PATHETIC. Deal with that

As to your 99% unfamiliar with transfer responses to opening bids, I would guess the same percentage are unfamiliar with transfers after overcalls. Familiarity with a convention doesn't seem to be the reason for acceptance by that standard.

I am unfamiliar with strong diamond openings and Avarelli Blackwood also but that doesn't mean that I think those toys should be banned. This is because if I know our defense against strong club and ordinary Blackwood I can deal with those toys also without having to discuss it.

People are familiar with transfers in constructive auctions. They probably have discussed that double is lead-directing, they may or may not have discussed what a direct cuebid in the transfer suit means. In any case they are in no less familiar territory after a transfer response to a suit opening than after 1NT.

I can understand that T-Walsh and Moscito openings are not covered by the same umbrella, though, since the transfer bidders could be in a 4-0 fit so we might want to bid their suit naturally, and we would need to discuss this, even if we do have a defense against 5-card transfers.

[mycroft]

Transfers where it is reasonable that we want to play in the transferred suit are a very different beast from transfers where it is highly unlikely. Our defence, for instance, to transfers after NT (by either side!) is "double for the suit, "accept" the transfer for takeout, delayed double for penalty". This will clearly get us talked out of our heart fits (with 4-1 breaks, of course, but at least we know that) after 1♣-p-1♦(♥) ...

I am not arguing for or against the restriction, whether it be an opener or an immediate response (frankly, I think they should be GCC allowed (at least for T-Walsh style; not so sure about transfer openings), but I also think 'any defence to NT' should be allowed, KI should be allowed, and a few others; I'm generally in favour of liberalization of the GCC - but not "but our system is so good, why can't we play it? But not any of that weird stuff, no!" (maybe *because* it's so good, especially without a carefully tuned defence?)). I'm just pointing out that the difference between 5 and 4 is actually a really big deal.

Note: another thing I'd be happy to see added to the GCC is transfer responses after an overcall (you can do it against a double, provided it's not penalty, because "any call after conventional calls", but not over a natural overcall. Try explaining (or remembering) that!) Which is more pertinent to the original topic.