Home EBU TDs

Transfer responses at Level 2

Are artificial transfer responses (unlimited in HCP and obviously forcing and alerted)) to 1 club opening (+2) at a Level 2 session permitted ? In the
Blue Book it is mentioned that only the artificial WEAK bids in response to a one-level suit are disallowed (Last sentence of paragragh 6C 3 ). But what about transfer responses that are unlimited in strength. Grateful for your your advice please

Comments

  • edited May 16

    I think the context indicates that only natural responses or a negative to a Strong Club are alllowed. I imagine the wording has been carried forward from a time when transfer responses to 1C were unknown.

    From BB 6C3: All the standard responses are permitted, but (apart from negative responses to a strong 1C
    opening, or a catch-all 1NT response) artificial weak bids in response to a one-level suit
    opening are not.

  • When 'Level 2' was first defined. the artificial responses were limited to 1C(strong)-1D(negative), 1C-1H(semi-positive) - and perhaps 1D(strong)-1H(negative) when you could play strong 1D at Level 2.

    When the current wording for 'Level 2' came in (with 'standard responses'), transfer responses to 1C(short) were much less common - even now they could not be regarded as 'standard' even in the South-East.

  • Further observations to the above:
    1. When transfer responses to 1C (alerted and a suit is explined when asked):
    (a) a suit is known to the opponents when asked.
    (b) given that a lot of emphasis is currently is made on the 1 club transfers responses in the announcement summary sheet by filling up nearly a half page) and in the Blue book , it seems to indicate to me the EBU wants people to be aware of this type of play. The idea behind 1C transfer responses is for the opener with more HCP to become a declarer (when the responders hand is weak) wherever possible and also for the partnership to continue to bid (when the responder's hand is not weak). This seems to be similar to the transfer responses to 1N opening in a traditional sense - which are allowed at Level 2.

    Now the transfer responses are made known to the opponents by alerting, and regardless of whether it is "standard" or not, there is a need to revisit the wording of 6C3 in the Blue Book.

    My own recommendation is that there is there is no harm in allowing transfer responses to 1C at level 2. particularly there are many conventions/carding/bidding scenarios that are allowed which could be considered more difficult than the transfer responses. As such, I would recommend either the deletion of the last sentence of 6C3 in the Blue Book or the appropriate revised wording to cover this point.

    Further thoughts on this topic would be appreciated- thank you so much.
  • @rkcb1430 said:
    The idea behind 1C transfer responses is for the opener with more HCP to become a declarer (when the responders hand is weak) wherever possible and also for the partnership to continue to bid (when the responder's hand is not weak).

    No, the idea is to facilitate the subsequent auctions better.

    Level 2 events are far rarer than Level 4, and it is right that they should be more restrictive as to what can be played.

    Playing transfer responses at Level 4, I find that a significant number of my opponents need to discuss their defence to them before play starts.

  • Thank you Gordon.

    It has been established that the original purpose of paragraph 6C3 appears to have been designed to cover artificial responses to STRONG CLUB openings but not for artifical transfer responses(suit explained when asked following alert) to the 1C opening for 5CM players. There seem to be no indication nor support, in my view, to deal with my point in the wider context. I wholeheartedly agree that Level 2 sessions are very restrictive for all obvious reasons which is wholly understood.. Let us leave this topic in abeyance and may be someone will revisit the wording of 6C3 in the future. Thank you so much for expert guidance.
Sign In or Register to comment.