[olegru]

According ACBL convention MID chart allowed:

Quote

9. Transfer opening bids at the two level or higher showing a weak
bid in the suit being transferred to.

Defence versus transfer preempts (whether 1 or 2 under the suit bid) is on acbl site http://web2.acbl.org...database/2e.htm too.

Questions:
1. Is it allowed to play transfer preempt by agreement to show exactly 5 cards suit? (and have another opening bid to show the "regular" week two hands.)
2. Is it legal for preemptors partner to pass the transfer preempt?

[awm]

It's really amazing how bad this defense is, especially given the standards recently endorsed for defenses. I mean, it doesn't say anything about 2X-Pass-Pass or 2X-(Dbl)-Pass and these are two of the most annoying auctions to cope with. This method also means you have no way to penalize when the trump stack is "in front" of the preempter (obviously less common than penalizing when the trumps are "behind" the preempter, but it still happens).

You can certainly pass the transfer, but you might have to claim "no agreement" about the meaning of pass since otherwise you have an agreement not covered by the ridiculous suggested defense. As to whether the transfer can show "exactly five" in the suit transferred to, I'm sure this is a ridiculous gray area in the charts. I mean, obviously it can show "exactly six" since this is how most people play preempts, and obviously it can be "five or six" as well. But sometimes regulators get tied up with "exactly five" so who knows.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 14 2010, 01:01 AM, said:

It's really amazing how bad this defense is, especially given the standards recently endorsed for defenses. I mean, it doesn't say anything about 2X-Pass-Pass or 2X-(Dbl)-Pass and these are two of the most annoying auctions to cope with. This method also means you have no way to penalize when the trump stack is "in front" of the preempter (obviously less common than penalizing when the trumps are "behind" the preempter, but it still happens).

Adam, it was already explained to us that there are no standards for approved defenses and even if there were standards, there's no reason to assume that defenses that were approved at one point in time are in any way relevant to the current standards for suggested defenses...