[relknes]

I have two questions. I realize as I ask them that they may seem strange because no one in their right mind would say that SAYC is not GCC compliant, but I can't for the life of me figure out where the GCC permits the methods, and since methods are disallowed unless specifically permitted I feel like I must be missing something glaring.
First, and most strange, I can't find where the GCC allows natural openings or responses. I see where it defines them, along with defining "Convention" and "Relay system" etc, but not where it actually says you can use them.
Second, and the reason I started looking at this, is that I can't see how a potentially non-natural, non-forcing 1N is allowed in response to 1M. For instance, over 1♠, 1N says nothing about balanced or not balanced, it simply says that you don't have enough points to bid at the 2 level. Since it is non-forcing, it dosn't fall under #2 of responses and rebids, and since partner's opening wasn't strong and forcing, it dosn't fall under #7... so where is it permitted?
Thanks for taking the time to answer this somewhat rediculous question.

[aguahombre]

What you are missing is that a Convention Chart is a chart of conventions (GCC, mid, or whatever).

In the GCC, the word "convention" is defined. Natural bids are defined (4+M, 3+m). Natural bids which do not convey meanings about other suits or special strength (for instance) are not conventions.

The GCC is not meant to regulate bids which are not conventions; so, they call it a convention chart.

[ArtK78]

In the ACBL General Convention Chart, the following language appears prior to the list of approved conventions:

Conventional agreements permitted by the ACBL Convention Charts are subject to the regulations documented in the ACBL Alert Pamphlet. For a complete list of definitions see Alert Pamphlet-Definitions.

The implication (and it is a necessary implication) is that calls which are not conventional, i.e. natural calls, are not subject to regulation. Furthermore, Law 40.D provides that the sponsoring organization has the right to regulate conventional calls. The laws do not give the sponsoring organization the right to regulate non-conventional calls (but the laws do provide that the sponsoring organization has the right to regulate opening bids of below normal strength). The laws define "convention" as follows:

Convention

1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention.

2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference.

[gnasher]

Art, you're quoting the 1997 Laws. The 2007 Laws don't contain a Law 40D, don't define a Convention, and do permit the RA to regulate any agreement that they deem "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament". This can include natural bids.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-July-12, 11:04

[ArtK78]

I apologize. I was not aware I was quoting from an older version of the laws.

The 2007 laws contain these provisions in Law 40 which accomplish the same thing:

B. Special Partnership Understandings

1. (a) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as “special partnership understandings”. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

(b) Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

2. (a) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. It
may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods. It may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

So, as stated in 40 B 1(b), a convention is included within the term "special partnership understandings" (unless specifically excluded from that definition by the Regulating Authority) and the Regulating Authority has full authority "to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally" the use of any such special partnership understanding. Note that the law specifically mentions that "any call that has an artificial meaning" comes under the heading of "special partnership understanding."

Your statement that this version of Law 40 gives the RA authority to regulate natural calls if such a call "is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament" is literally true, as the law was worded to be inclusive rather than exclusive. At least it appears that the ACBL has gone the other way, deliberately excluding natural calls from regulation.

[bluejak]

No, I don't think so. The ACBL Regulations have not caught up with the 2007 Laws yet, that is all, they are based on earlier Law books. The earlier post by yourself contains the ACBL approach.

[blackshoe]

If the regulations had caught up with the laws, the GCC would place restrictions directly on 1NT openings with less than 10 HCP, instead of retaining the "work around" required by the 1997 laws of restricting use of conventions after such an opening.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-12, 20:40, said:

If the regulations had caught up with the laws, the GCC would place restrictions directly on 1NT openings with less than 10 HCP, instead of retaining the "work around" required by the 1997 laws of restricting use of conventions after such an opening.

One of us doesn't understand what the GCC is. Its restriction on conventions after a natural NT opening which has too low a maximum or too wide a range is written properly in accordance with the current laws. The GCC tells us what coventions we can use at certain levels and which ones we can't use.

If it placed restrictions directly on the 1NT openings with less than 10 HCP or on NT openings with a too-wide range, it would be contrary to the purpose of the GCC.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-12, 23:04, said:

If it placed restrictions directly on the 1NT openings with less than 10 HCP or on NT openings with a too-wide range, it would be contrary to the purpose of the GCC.

One of us does not understand the purpose of the GCC. I thought it was there to protect LOLs from having to face anything that might remotely be considered non-standard. Banning such 1NT openings would definitely fit in with this purpose.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-12, 23:04, said:

One of us doesn't understand what the GCC is. Its restriction on conventions after a natural NT opening which has too low a maximum or too wide a range is written properly in accordance with the current laws. The GCC tells us what coventions we can use at certain levels and which ones we can't use.

If it placed restrictions directly on the 1NT openings with less than 10 HCP or on NT openings with a too-wide range, it would be contrary to the purpose of the GCC.

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-13, 03:31, said:

One of us does not understand the purpose of the GCC. I thought it was there to protect LOLs from having to face anything that might remotely be considered non-standard. Banning such 1NT openings would definitely fit in with this purpose.

If one of us doesn't understand what the GCC is, it isn't me.

Why do you think the restriction on use of conventions after certain natural NT openings exists? I'll tell you why: it's because under previous laws (1997 in particular) the ACBL could not directly regulate the 1NT opening itself. Now they can — all they have to do is declare it a "Special Partnership Understanding". The current situation remains in place, IMO, either because the ACBL haven't got around to changing it yet, or because they fear the possible repercussions if they do change it. Probably the former — the speed at which the C&C moves makes snails seem fast.

[aguahombre]

The ACBL can make restrictions on natural bids. That won't make a natural NT opening within a certain range a convention. It seems to be the middle word represented by "GCC" upon which we disagree.

When (if) they decide the 8-point NT opening is illegal, then the fact that no conventions may be employed after its use will be moot. For now, the GCC wording is just fine. It would still be fine if the opening bid itself were banned, or if a certain partnership "upgrades" enough times to constitute a special partnership agreement. Either way, the GCC speaks of conventions.

[blackshoe]

Pfui. Nothing stops the ACBL from changing the name of the chart, either. You're wasting your energy on irrelevancies.

[mycroft]

At one point they *did* ban <10 HCP NTs, and "Bergen" weak 2s that weren't 5 cards or were wide-ranging (I believe they required "5 and 5". At some point after that, it was made very clear to them that they weren't allowed to do so by Law. So they've spent the last 20 years fixing that, both by the Endicott Fudge (which, frankly, is only that because the ACBL, and then the EBU, asked the WBFLC whether that was a legal restriction of conventions, and was told by the WBFLC Secretary that yes, it was), and by replacing "convention" (which was never adequately defined anyway) with SPU (which gave them the opportunity to do what they had done before).

They likely haven't done it only because the Fudge works well enough that they're effectively banned anyway, and therefore nobody has to deal with the "banned" calls. If someone plays it with enough success or notoriety, the wheels of the C&C committee will be taken out of neutral, I'm sure.

Note: I never write for the ACBL, and I *certainly* don't know the internals or beliefs of the C&C Committee. This is just what I divine from the visuals, just like any other player.