[bd71]

Not sure how common there are, but I faced them for the first time recently.

RHO opened 1♠, LHO responded 2♣ alerted as transfer to diamonds.

Several questions about this:

1. This was not a high-level event (ACBL "B" level NAP); are these permitted? I didn't even think to question it, and I now can't find specific mention of this at all in the ACBL Alert Chart or GCC.

2. What is the best way to use a double after this sequence? Partner did double, and we were on the same page that default meaning of double of conventional bid was lead-directing suggesting he held clubs. My question is whether it is more useful to use double as two-suited takeout?

3. Should I even worry about 1 and 2? Is this something I'm likely to face more than a handful of times in the next few decades?

[PrecisionL]

1. Not ACBL legal in GCC events (unless LHO of the opener Doubles).

2. One approach is to use X to show the suit bid and bid the suit promised as a takeout for the other two or three suits.

3. It depends if you have players that use the GCC legal transfers: It is GCC legal to use transfers after a takeout double or in responding to a takeout double. Also, if your partner overcalls, you can use transfer advances.

[paulg]

bd71, on 2011-October-30, 21:27, said:

Not sure how common there are, but I faced them for the first time recently.

RHO opened 1♠, LHO responded 2♣ alerted as transfer to diamonds.

Several questions about this:

1. This was not a high-level event (ACBL "B" level NAP); are these permitted? I didn't even think to question it, and I now can't find specific mention of this at all in the ACBL Alert Chart or GCC.

If the response is game forcing and not part of a relay system, then I believe it would be permitted.

[gnasher]

bd71, on 2011-October-30, 21:27, said:

2. What is the best way to use a double after this sequence? Partner did double, and we were on the same page that default meaning of double of conventional bid was lead-directing suggesting he held clubs. My question is whether it is more useful to use double as two-suited takeout?

Most people play that double shows the suit that they've bid, and bidding their suit is for takeout. Unless responder is promising a good hand, I think double should show values as well. That is, it invites partner to compete in the suit, not just to lead them.

Another approach is to play double as a takeout double of their suit(s) and a cue-bid as two-suited. You could play the two-suiter as 5-5, or as a 4M-5m type. That probably has more value after a minor-suit opening, when there are three suits that we might play in.

Quote

3. Should I even worry about 1 and 2? Is this something I'm likely to face more than a handful of times in the next few decades?

I think that methods like this will become more common over the next few years, at least in jurisdictions where they're allowed.

[gwnn]

I think it's fine to play

double = the suit they bid (now: clubs), usually 6 cards, interest in competing
complete transfer (here: 2♦) = the other two suits, 5-5
2N = idle

but of course you can try to use 2N as 5-5+ and play the "completion" as 4 higher+5 lower (here: 4 hearts+5 clubs) or 5 higher+4 lower

[gwnn]

Something I learned on the forums a while back is what you should do against 1-level transfers:

e.g.

1♣-p-1♦ showing hearts:
X=diamonds+spades (i.e. the same as 1♣-p-1♥-X natural takeout)
1♥=clubs+spades

1♣-p-1♥ showing spades:
X=diamonds+hearts (i.e. the same as 1♣-p-1♠-X natural takeout)
1♠=clubs+hearts

This is useful because most people who play transfers over 1♣ also play 1♣ could be 2, and often 1♣ is opened with all balanced hands, in which case their expected club length is scarcely higher than their expected diamond length.

[Zelandakh]

Your first question has already been answered - it is not GCC-legal unless it is GF. For the second question I would recommend you have a single meta-defence for transfers in general. The two most common are X to show the suit bid and cue as a good take-out (with delayed double as weaker take-out), or X as take-out with the cue as 2-suited, Michaels-style. I do not think it matters too much whch you choose so long as you and partner agree. At GCC level it is not worth coming up with more specific defenses imho.

[wyman]

Suppose opps use an unfamiliar convention, so that you are not sure of its legality. When is the correct time to call the director? I'd assume you call as soon as you have info about what the call means, but I'd understand if you weren't supposed to call until after the auction.

What's the procedure if opps are using an illegal system? As in OP, suppose we hear:

(1S)-P-(2C!)- <director>

Can 2D ever be substituted?

[blackshoe]

Law 9B1(a) says "The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." As soon as you say "I don't think transfers are legal here" or similar, you've drawn attention to an irregularity. It could be "I think we need the director", and then you call.

There's no legal provision for a substitution, although if a substitution is tried, the player's LHO may accept it (Law 25B1). If the NOS are damaged by use of an illegal agreement, Law 40B5 prescribes an adjusted score, and possibly a procedural penalty. I would think the conditions of contest would provide that if a contestant is found to have use an illegal method throughout a substantial part of an event, that contestant would be disqualified, but I'm not sure that's the case.

[wyman]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-31, 10:52, said:

Law 9B1(a) says "The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." As soon as you say "I don't think transfers are legal here" or similar, you've drawn attention to an irregularity. It could be "I think we need the director", and then you call.

I guess I'm more asking how appropriate it is to summon a director to ask whether (rather than to point out that) the opponents are doing something illegal.

For example, I would not have known that GF transfer responses were GCC-legal (but I also wouldn't have known enough to say 'I think these might be illegal in this event'). So had I sat down 3 days ago and heard (1S) (2C!) and not known whether it was legal, should I have called immediately? Is my not knowing whether a convention is legal an irregularity by itself?

[gnasher]

wyman, on 2011-October-31, 11:14, said:

I guess I'm more asking how appropriate it is to summon a director to ask whether (rather than to point out that) the opponents are doing something illegal.

It's entirely appropriate. That's part of what he's paid to do.

The opponents shouldn't be offended by this, as long as you don't imply any deliberate impropriety.

Quote

Is my not knowing whether a convention is legal an irregularity by itself?

No. You're not required to know what the rules are, as long as you obey them.

[jeffford76]

wyman, on 2011-October-31, 11:14, said:

I guess I'm more asking how appropriate it is to summon a director to ask whether (rather than to point out that) the opponents are doing something illegal.

For example, I would not have known that GF transfer responses were GCC-legal (but I also wouldn't have known enough to say 'I think these might be illegal in this event'). So had I sat down 3 days ago and heard (1S) (2C!) and not known whether it was legal, should I have called immediately? Is my not knowing whether a convention is legal an irregularity by itself?

I think you're better off attempting to play the board and asking at the end. There's really not much the director can do in the middle of the auction. (For example, they aren't going to be made to change systems in the middle of the auction.) So try to get a good board, and if you don't you'll probably be given average plus if it turns out the method wasn't legal.

[mycroft]

jeffford: you're in the ACBL and this is a GCC post, so I'll talk ACBL.

ACBL policy for illegal system is not "A+ if they use an illegal system", it's "if the NOS was damaged by the use of the illegal call, adjust" - by artificial adjusted score, if necessary, but assigned adjusted score if reasonable. You don't just get a good score because they used a non-GCC call in a GCC event, if it made no difference.

The merits of that are debatable, but that's the rule.

Having said that, it's reasonable to wait until the end of the hand for exactly the reasons you state.

Having said that, pairs who do it *again*, after having one TD meeting about it, get PPed (that doesn't adjust the second NOS' score either, unless *they* were damaged.) I would assume a third case, ignoring the TDs ruling twice, would result in disqualification.
(note: checked the code of disciplinary regulations. The standard penalty for "Play[ing] a convention, system, or treatment knowing it is illegal" is "90 days probation and/or up to 60 days Suspension". I wish I could find at quick glance the policy I've quoted above. I know it's referenced in some Appeals Casebook or other, and I've certainly been given that ruling at the table).

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2011-November-01, 11:56, said:

ACBL policy for illegal system is not "A+ if they use an illegal system", it's "if the NOS was damaged by the use of the illegal call, adjust" - by artificial adjusted score, if necessary, but assigned adjusted score if reasonable. You don't just get a good score because they used a non-GCC call in a GCC event, if it made no difference.

This is certainly correct, and I appreciate you writing it all out when I was too lazy to.

I don't think it's inconsistent with my statement that they'll probably get average-plus. To award an assigned adjusted score requires you to consider the auction backed up to the illegal call, and assume that they were playing a completely different legal system, decide what would have happened. (Or, more accurately what the most favorable likely result was for the non-offenders and most unfavorable at all probable result for the offenders.) Most of these cases are going to fit the criterion that the "possibilities are numerous or not obvious".

[Phil]

mycroft, on 2011-November-01, 11:56, said:

jeffford: you're in the ACBL and this is a GCC post, so I'll talk ACBL.

ACBL policy for illegal system is not "A+ if they use an illegal system", it's "if the NOS was damaged by the use of the illegal call, adjust" - by artificial adjusted score, if necessary, but assigned adjusted score if reasonable. You don't just get a good score because they used a non-GCC call in a GCC event, if it made no difference.

The merits of that are debatable, but that's the rule.

Having said that, it's reasonable to wait until the end of the hand for exactly the reasons you state.

Having said that, pairs who do it *again*, after having one TD meeting about it, get PPed (that doesn't adjust the second NOS' score either, unless *they* were damaged.) I would assume a third case, ignoring the TDs ruling twice, would result in disqualification.
(note: checked the code of disciplinary regulations. The standard penalty for "Play[ing] a convention, system, or treatment knowing it is illegal" is "90 days probation and/or up to 60 days Suspension". I wish I could find at quick glance the policy I've quoted above. I know it's referenced in some Appeals Casebook or other, and I've certainly been given that ruling at the table).

Before a match I will inspect the opponents CC. If there's anything that looks 'funny' to me (i.e., illegal), I will call the director at once, and not wait until it comes up. It would be hard for a director to not assign a PP after they have been called and its been pointed out to them that their methods are illegal. In both cases, suggested defenses (not approved) were provided, and my reaction was 'don't bother'.

Mind you, this has only come up twice in my career. Both times the methods didn't come up. I doubt either pair stopped playing them.

[BunnyGo]

Phil, on 2011-November-01, 17:27, said:

Before a match I will inspect the opponents CC. If there's anything that looks 'funny' to me (i.e., illegal), I will call the director at once, and not wait until it comes up. It would be hard for a director to not assign a PP after they have been called and its been pointed out to them that their methods are illegal. In both cases, suggested defenses (not approved) were provided, and my reaction was 'don't bother'.

Mind you, this has only come up twice in my career. Both times the methods didn't come up. I doubt either pair stopped playing them.

Do you find the time to do this in a pairs event too? I'm just curious because I usually do not, and the OP was for an NAP qualifier.

[Phil]

BunnyGo, on 2011-November-01, 17:33, said:

Do you find the time to do this in a pairs event too? I'm just curious because I usually do not, and the OP was for an NAP qualifier.

Generally not.

[Yu18772]

wyman, on 2011-October-31, 11:14, said:

I guess I'm more asking how appropriate it is to summon a director to ask whether (rather than to point out that) the opponents are doing something illegal.

For example, I would not have known that GF transfer responses were GCC-legal (but I also wouldn't have known enough to say 'I think these might be illegal in this event'). So had I sat down 3 days ago and heard (1S) (2C!) and not known whether it was legal, should I have called immediately? Is my not knowing whether a convention is legal an irregularity by itself?

If you are not sure about something its always appropriate to call the director There is nothing offending in it, as pointed out before players are not expected to know (or remember) ACBL rules.