[zenko]

Most pairs playing transfer responses to 1C opening deploy rather fuzzy meaning to the 1S response, for example this is how is that bid defined on Garner-Weinstein's CC:
1♣-(P)-1♠ = No 4-card Major, may be very weak, not suitable for other bids

Looking at ACBL Charts this kind of bids do not appear to be legal (at least on general and mid chart level). This seem to be the relevant rule, part of the mid-chart sheet:

"ALLOWED
3.* All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted, except for:

a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values"

One can argue that this bid fails to meet BOTH criteria, i.e. it is not really "constructive" since it can be made holding prett much no values at all, and also, since its distribution requrements are so meager it is really nothing more than a "relay" bid made possibly on less than GF values, which is also illegal.

To make it clear I am not writing this to pick on G-W, but to point out that there is a need that ACBL finally clarifies its stance. The issue was brought up on the last two ACBL's Competition Committee's meetings in 2009, and they simply refused to discuss it (check the minutes of the meetings if you do not believe me).

If anyody knows more about this issue please let me know.

[blackshoe]

One bid does not a relay system make.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

One bid does not a relay system make.

Now we know his other job -- stuffing fortune cookies.

[hrothgar]

zenko, on Apr 10 2010, 09:42 PM, said:

Most pairs playing transfer responses to 1C opening deploy rather fuzzy meaning to the 1S response, for example this is how is that bid defined on Garner-Weinstein's CC:
1♣-(P)-1♠ = No 4-card Major, may be very weak, not suitable for other bids

Looking at ACBL Charts this kind of bids do not appear to be legal (at least on general and mid chart level). This seem to be the relevant rule, part of the mid-chart sheet:

"ALLOWED
3.* All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted, except for:

a. relay systems that show less than game-forcing values"

One can argue that this bid fails to meet BOTH criteria, i.e. it is not really "constructive" since it can be made holding prett much no values at all, and also, since its distribution requrements are so meager it is really nothing more than a "relay" bid made possibly on less than GF values, which is also illegal.

To make it clear I am not writing this to pick on G-W, but to point out that there is a need that ACBL finally clarifies its stance. The issue was brought up on the last two ACBL's Competition Committee's meetings in 2009, and they simply refused to discuss it (check the minutes of the meetings if you do not believe me).

If anyody knows more about this issue please let me know.

Where are the minutes posted?

[zenko]

http://www.acbl.org/...Convention.html

[rbforster]

Zenko - you're right that the 1C-1S artificial response is not GCC. If it is used as a non-constructive bid, it might not even bid MidChart as you say, although I imagine the definition of "constructive" could include some pretty weak hands. As a matter of practice, if it contains some constructive hands I expect this would probably be fine for Midchart. (Note that you can't claim to psych an artificial suit response when you bid this with a very weak hand). It would be Superchart legal under a laxer standard which merely requires it to be non-destructive, rather than constructive.

zenko, on Apr 10 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

The issue was brought up on the last two ACBL's Competition Committee's meetings in 2009, and they simply refused to discuss it (check the minutes of the meetings if you do not believe me).

The committee considered the issue of allowing transfers over 1C (as GCC), but apparently there wasn't enough support to even consider it:

ACBL_Minutes, on Summer 2009, said:

d. Transfers responses to natural 1C as GCC.  Motion not seconded.