legal or not per gcc

[Sadie3]

1S (3D!) P 3H

 

3D is alerted as a transfer to Hearts with opening point count. Is this a GCC legal bid?

[TylerE]

Legal in Mid-chart events because it shows 4+ cards in a known suit. Not legal in GCC events.

 

It would be legal at the GCC level if it showed 5+-4+ in two known suits...e.g. 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♠.

[rwbarton]

Legal in Mid-chart events because it shows 4+ cards in a known suit. Not legal in GCC events.

 

It would be legal at the GCC level if it showed 5+-4+ in two known suits...e.g. 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♠.

The main difficulty in answering this question is determining which is the current version of the relevant convention charts. I can find at least two versions of the Mid-chart, one with the provision "Allowed: ... Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit" and one without. However, the versions of the GCC I have found certainly do not allow this bid and I would be highly surprised if there had been any recent changes affecting this.

 

Edit: Actually, it was much easier than I thought to find the current charts through acbl.org. For some reason, they don't appear to be indexed by Google. Anyways, you can clearly see there that the 3D bid is not allowed at either the GCC or Mid-chart levels (since it is not explicitly permitted by items 1-7 of the Competitive section of the GCC or by any item of the Mid-chart).

[Mbodell]

In GCC events this is not legal.

 

You are allowed to play transfers (in GCC) that are:

 

Over a natural nt bid (responding or overcalling)

 

Over a dbl

 

Over a strong forcing opening bid (precision 1♣) or over opening bids of 2♣ or higher (no matter their meaning)

 

Advancing an overcall (transfer advances)

 

You are not allowed to play transfers (in GCC) that are:

 

Transfer openings (neither constructive nor preemtive)

 

Transfer overcalls (what you asked about in this question), other than over the forcing openings or natural nt bids

 

Transfer responses to natural openings (I.e., a standard american 1♣ can't play that 1♥ shows spades); however, transfer responses are fine over the forcing openings (precision 1♣) or the natural nt openings.

[Vampyr]

Wow. ACBL bidding regulations are much more restrictive than I had thought (and I had thought that they were pretty restrictive).

[Cascade]

In GCC events this is not legal.

 

You are allowed to play transfers (in GCC) that are:

 

Over a natural nt bid (responding or overcalling)

 

Over a dbl

 

Over a strong forcing opening bid (precision 1♣) or over opening bids of 2♣ or higher (no matter their meaning)

 

Advancing an overcall (transfer advances)

 

You are not allowed to play transfers (in GCC) that are:

 

Transfer openings (neither constructive nor preemtive)

 

Transfer overcalls (what you asked about in this question), other than over the forcing openings or natural nt bids

 

Transfer responses to natural openings (I.e., a standard american 1♣ can't play that 1♥ shows spades); however, transfer responses are fine over the forcing openings (precision 1♣) or the natural nt openings.

I believe they are also legal over a short club and short diamond these being conventional bids.

[paulg]

In GCC events this is not legal. 

 

You are allowed to play transfers (in GCC) that are:

 

Over a natural nt bid (responding or overcalling)

 

Over a dbl

 

Over a strong forcing opening bid (precision 1♣) or over opening bids of 2♣ or higher (no matter their meaning)

 

Advancing an overcall (transfer advances)

 

You are not allowed to play transfers (in GCC) that are:

 

Transfer openings (neither constructive nor preemtive)

 

Transfer overcalls (what you asked about in this question), other than over the forcing openings or natural nt bids

 

Transfer responses to natural openings (I.e., a standard american 1♣ can't play that 1♥ shows spades); however, transfer responses are fine over the forcing openings (precision 1♣) or the natural nt openings.

I believe they are also legal over a short club and short diamond these being conventional bids.

Naughty, I don't think we need this again. Taunting the colonials should be left to the experienced :)

[bluejak]

Cascade is experienced at 'taunting the colonials', merely on the receiving end.