Permitted at Level 2 (Reprise)
Time for my annual query about permitted agreements at Level 2!
Level 2 is a pretty broad church, particularly with the catch all of 'any common English system.'
And I assume SAYC, although not English, might be considered as common in England.
But what about 2-over-1?
Secondly, are transfer responses to nebulous 1C opening permitted?
The wording of 6C3 prohibits weak artificial responses.
But of course such a response is not necessarily weak.
Comments
I agree it is not 100% clear but for the people to whom this level applies, I would suspect that transfer responses are neither 'standard', nor common in that they will have prepared no defence to them - and hence not allowed.
2 over 1: 1NT, I would allow since a 'catch-all NT' is allowed (but should be alerted as '(semi)-forcing' and other responses are natural - the only difference is that players would have to alert a 2/1 as "Natural but game forcing". Since a rebid in a minor might be only three cards I would recommend that be alerted as "Natural but with a potentially unexpected meaning' - since someone playing at level 2 would expect a suit at the two level to have at least four cards in it.
I have played that 1NT shows either a weak hand with a lower suit or shows sound good support for the major (forcing to 2C). This is probably similar to a 2 over 1 NT response.
SAYC would be regarded as 5-card majors and a possibly short club suit - which would be allowed. I would look at such systems by how natural they are - and SAYC is pretty natural.
Level 2 is more an idea than prescriptive. In effect it is aimed at players who play 'naturally'. I had to ban a pair from using dual-meaning signals (odd encouraging, even = discouraging and suit preference). Playing online they also had the disadvantage that they couldn't see partner's cigarette/ lighter/ pencil placement ;) (not that I have any suspicions that they were doing anything like that)
2/1 GF is certainly common enough, especially since the Blue book mentions Nottingham club and blue club as falling under this clause, both considerably less common systems. Moreover, there's not anything at all problematic about playing against it, the 1NT might just be a slightly stronger hand than expected, but the differences to Sayc tend to be technical in nature.
Is "any common English system" the best wording here? A pedant might argue that sayc is by definition American.
I don't think transfer responses to a nebulous club fall under "artificial weak response" (which I think would describe negative responses, where these tend to be constructive in nature and include strong hands) or part of "any commmon English system", possibly because they're new enough to not be a standard part of any system, but that clause seems intended to include overall systems whereas transfer responses are an additional convention. I can't see a 100% compelling argument to allow or dissallow them, I think there's probably some discretion.
It might be better for it to say "any system commonly played in England".
I certainly don't think transfer responses should be allowed:
"All the standard responses are permitted, ..."
Transfer responses are not standard.
Only the 1NT 'forcing' should be announced. A semi-forcing 1NT is just like ACOL 1NT by the responder and is not announced or alerted. I do agree with you in a Level 2 competition a rebid by the opener should be noted as 3 cards. In the same vain there are two major variations of 2 Over 1:
(1) a rebid of the opening major is 5 cards (this one catering to a 3 card minor rebid); or
(2) a rebid of the opening major guarantees 6+ cards.
A semi-forcing 1NT isn't just like the ACOL 1NT and is usually alerted. It's different because
Blue Book specifies that you have to alert
" A 1NT response to a 1H or 1S opening which might have more than 10 HCP "
While were are on the topic.
The Blue Book does not say the other difference is alertable:
"A 1NT response to a 1H or 1S (5-card) opening which can be unbalanced with 3-card support for partner's suit"
Should it?
I remember the discussion about this in the L&E and I think it was considered only necessary to alert such calls as are included in the >10 requirement.