[Pavell]

tysen2k, on Dec 3 2004, 01:31 PM, said:

Pavell, on Dec 2 2004, 08:30 PM, said:

With a King and a Singleton = 6 CP, the response will be 4♣
- What South knows now: the PL = 5 and CP 32, so s/he will continue with the  Relay of 4♦ for the 5 card suit, then for the 4 card suit, all natural.

South - West - North - East
1♣ (B2+, any shape)- 3♠ - Pass (B(0) or less) - Pass
X (Relay for CP) - Pass - 4♣ (6 CP) - Pass
4♦ - Pass - 4♥ (2 or 5 card Basic suit, length preference) - Pass
4♠ - Pass - 5♣ (4 card suit) - Pass
6♣ (if partner's 4 card suit was ♦, we would play 5♦, but now with 32 CP and PL = 6, because of the SuperFit, I must go to 6)

Okay, so you're at 4♣ with neither partner having shown shape information. Good thing you were able to stumble into a club fit.

So if responder had 6 hearts and no other 4-card suit I assume he would bid 5♥ over the 4♠ relay?

- You assume wrong. If North has 6 ♥ s/he will use the 2nd part of SCOR-SCOR Convention. After 4♠ that will be 4th or upper steps depending on the distribution, so the Quest will be able to choose the best Fit, if it exist at all. But after the overcall of 3♠, the statistically chances are more than enough.
- Of coure, all can go to hell. That way ForcePoint Counting/Bidding is not advertised with 100% contract assurance, but 83+% only, still enough to overpower the most system. To be successfull against ForcePoint, you will need a system full of difficult for remembering gatgets, something close to the system which the Argentinians Madala - Ravena use, but do not expect more than 1-5% difference. And if the match is not alone, be sure that ForcePoint will answer appropriate.
- There are some magazines with the Bidding Box games: ACBL Bulletin, The Bridge World and etc. To understand the power of Fp, check the system using them. You will be able to compare immediately its results with the World Class Players results. The Fp bids are strictly synonimous, so it doesn't matter, that you will be the only one for the pairs bids. If someting goes wrong ask me to be sure.

[hrothgar]

>A GENERAL NOTE: NFP was banned from BBO ACBL because of its 3 opening bids:
>
>- 1♣ = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit, alerted
>- 1NT = 10+ HCP, any bi-color, alerted
>- 2♦ = 10+ HCP, unbalanced (with Void), alerted
>
>- Although in the General Convention Chart (GCC) which ACBL use, there is nothing
>spesifically written to forbid this 3 opening bids...

One important comment:

The ACBL's GCC is specifically constructed as a list of approved conventions. If a convention is not explictly sanctioned by the GCC, then it is banned.

I've had a number of run ins with the ACBL's Conventions Committee over the years including a couple when Fred was a member. I always found Fred to be one of the most reasonable/flexible members of that committee. With this said and done, there really isn't any room for flexibility on this one.

The methods clearly are not permitted at the GCC level...

With this said and done, there are any number of people on BBO using equally artifical methods. A number of use are having a match on Sunday. Feel free to wander by if you have a partner familiar with the system...

[inquiry]

Yes, I know moscito and most of the club and diamond based systems. I have even tried forcing pass. So the aritificial match doesn't interest me much. But I would drop by if Fp was played....

One of two things would happen. FP would be worldclass and I would learn something, or Fp would be a disaster. Either way, an educational time would be had.

ben

[Pavell]

hrothgar, on Dec 1 2004, 08:40 AM, said:

Pavell, on Dec 1 2004, 12:15 PM, said:

You simply are suspisious, that ForcePoint will be weak on preemtive. Why? You didn't checked it. Obviously you do not like the fact, that somewhere around can persist a system that is better on preemptive than the systems you know. You do not need a system that will shake your basic bridge imagination. Let's decide what to do. Close your eyes and forget about it.

I'll readily admit that I have some "issues" with ForcePoint:

Issue 1: ForcePoint's hand evaluatation system is complex. Coupled with this, the hand evaluation structure is not particularly accurate. The score generated by your hand evaluation system is worse than a number of less complex methods.

Issue 2: Rather than responding this critique you have essentially ignored it while making grandious if not impossible claims about the accuracy of your system. A claim that you will "never" miss a slam isn't an impressive one. Exagerations like this one suggest snake oil.

Issue 3: Your postings about ForcePoint are [essentially] a commercial for a series of products that you are selling. I very much enjoy debating bidding theory. However, I dislike commercial advertizement on education forums.

Before I invest the time and money required to learn your system, you really need to demonstrate that its worthwhile for me to do so.

The single most "impressive" thing that you could do would be demonstrate that you have a sound "foundation". Demonstrate that your hand evaluation methods are worth their complexity...

- If the adding of whole umbers for the HCP, Controls and Distribution pts, division by 4, subtracting 2, such finding your B#, then adding both partners B# to find your particular Play Level in the FIT suit is A COMPLEX THING for you, I'm helpless. Better use my advice to forget about Fp.

[Pavell]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 10:12 AM, said:

>A GENERAL NOTE: NFP was banned from BBO ACBL because of its 3 opening bids:
>
>- 1♣ = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit, alerted
>- 1NT = 10+ HCP, any bi-color, alerted
>- 2♦ = 10+ HCP, unbalanced (with Void), alerted
>
>- Although in the General Convention Chart (GCC) which ACBL use, there is nothing
>spesifically written to forbid this 3 opening bids...

One important comment:

The ACBL's GCC is specifically constructed as a list of approved conventions.  If a convention is not explictly sanctioned by the GCC, then it is banned.

I've had a number of run ins with the ACBL's Conventions Committee over the years including a couple when Fred was a member.  I always found Fred to be one of the most reasonable/flexible members of that committee.  With this said and done, there really isn't any room for flexibility on this one.

The methods clearly are not permitted at the GCC level...

With this said and done, there are any number of people on BBO using equally artifical methods.  A number of use are having a match on Sunday.  Feel free to wander by if you have a partner familiar with the system...

- NFP wasn't banned because of using an unlisted convention(s) by the ACBL GCC, because the system doesn't use any conventions at all. If you call the opening bid of 1♣ convention, even in the form NFP use it (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), , especially when it not require even any answer, that's is your problem (or maybe on ACBL). I'm curiuos if we have read different ACBL GCC ? Except for the Relay opening (tell me more), there wasn't nothing else about any conventions.

[inquiry]

Pavell, on Dec 7 2004, 09:08 PM, said:

- NFP wasn't banned because of using an unlisted convention(s) by the ACBL GCC, because the system doesn't use any conventions at all. If you call the opening bid of 1♣ convention, even in the form NFP use it (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), , especially when it not require even any answer, that's is your problem (or maybe on ACBL). I'm curiuos if we have read different ACBL GCC ? Except for the Relay opening (tell me more), there wasn't nothing else about any conventions.

Opening 1♣ on any 10+ hand without a five card suit (and hence, maybe as few as one club), is perfectly legal by the GCC, as long as you alert maybe short. The one club in this system is not even forcing, despite being as few as two.

I doubt anyone has any problem with the 1♣ opening bid per se.

[hrothgar]

Pavell, on Dec 8 2004, 04:08 AM, said:

NFP wasn't banned because of using an unlisted convention(s) by the ACBL GCC, because the system doesn't use any conventions at all. If you call the opening bid of 1♣ convention, even in the form NFP use it (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), , especially when it not require even any answer, that's is your problem (or maybe on ACBL). I'm curiuos if we have read different ACBL GCC ? Except for the Relay opening (tell me more), there wasn't nothing else about any conventions.

I have no problem with people making dogmatic statements, however, it gets annoying when said statements are this divorced from reality...

Comment 1: The term "Convention" is clearly defined in the Laws of Bridge. These are available at http://www.math.aau....e/laws/laws97e/, however for convenience, I will provide the following quote:

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.

Based on this definition, your 1♣, 1NT, and 2♦ are clearly Conventions.

Comment 2: As I noted before, the ACBL's GCC has a fairly logical construction:

First: The ACBL specifically defines "Natural Bids". In doing so, the ACBL expliclty sanctions use of these bids. [Regulatory authorities have the right to control the use of Conventions but not natural bids]

Second: The GCC specifically notes that "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

Third: The GCC specifically licenses a restricted number of Conventions. It should be noted that

(A) The GCC permits the use of an "all purpose 1♣ or 1♦ opening promsing a minimum to 10 HCP. Furthermore, the GCC permts the use of convention responses to a strong (15+ HCP) 1♣ opening.
(B) The GCC does not sanction a conventional NT opening that shows any two suited hand pattern with 10+ HCP
© The GCC does not sanction a conventional 2♦ opening showing an unbalanced hand with a void

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 09:34 PM, said:

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

The one club opening bid describing any 10+ hand (well not any 10+ hand, but many 10+ hands) without a five card suit is. And indeed, pavell and his partner pass the 1♣ opening bid from time time to time. so it must be "natural" to me.... even if it might have only one club.

BTW, one pair I know plays 1♦ promises 5+ diamonds, along with five card majors, so they open 1♣ even wiht 4441 hands.. .the acbl people don't seem to mind one bit.

[Pavell]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 08:34 PM, said:

Pavell, on Dec 8 2004, 04:08 AM, said:

NFP wasn't banned because of using an unlisted convention(s) by the ACBL GCC, because the system doesn't use any conventions at all. If you call the opening bid of 1♣ convention, even in the form NFP use it (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), , especially when it not require even any answer, that's is your problem (or maybe on ACBL). I'm curiuos if we have read different ACBL GCC ? Except for the Relay opening (tell me more), there wasn't nothing else about any conventions.

I have no problem with people making dogmatic statements, however, it gets annoying when said statements are this divorced from reality...

Comment 1: The term "Convention" is clearly defined in the Laws of Bridge. These are available at http://www.math.aau....e/laws/laws97e/, however for convenience, I will provide the following quote:

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.

Based on this definition, your 1♣, 1NT, and 2♦ are clearly Conventions.

Comment 2: As I noted before, the ACBL's GCC has a fairly logical construction:

First: The ACBL specifically defines "Natural Bids". In doing so, the ACBL expliclty sanctions use of these bids. [Regulatory authorities have the right to control the use of Conventions but not natural bids]

Second: The GCC specifically notes that "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

Third: The GCC specifically licenses a restricted number of Conventions. It should be noted that

(A) The GCC permits the use of an "all purpose 1♣ or 1♦ opening promsing a minimum to 10 HCP. Furthermore, the GCC permts the use of convention responses to a strong (15+ HCP) 1♣ opening.
( The GCC does not sanction a conventional NT opening that shows any two suited hand pattern with 10+ HCP
© The GCC does not sanction a conventional 2♦ opening showing an unbalanced hand with a void

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

- Thanks. That why I believed Fred, when he emailed me to drop NFP from ACBL in the future. But you found more time to explain all this things clearly. Thank you for your efford. Any way, even with your explanations, all this looks like sophism for me. Obviously, I'm unable to understand too well English.

[Pavell]

inquiry, on Dec 7 2004, 08:44 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 09:34 PM, said:

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

The one club opening bid describing any 10+ hand (well not any 10+ hand, but many 10+ hands) without a five card suit is. And indeed, pavell and his partner pass the 1♣ opening bid from time time to time. so it must be "natural" to me.... even if it might have only one club.

BTW, one pair I know plays 1♦ promises 5+ diamonds, along with five card majors, so they open 1♣ even wiht 4441 hands.. .the acbl people don't seem to mind one bit.

- If it is true, that means only one: even the light version of ForcePoint, Nell's ForcePoint, is a dangerous system, let kill it before it is born. The simple fact, that in comparision with SAYC, ForcePoint is easier on Slams, sometimes even better, is already open danger for the SAYC supporters. Any way, I'm not interesting anymore of NFP - SAYC competition on ACBL . With the 12 games, which NFP won on ACBL, at least Ben showed not only to me, that the ACBL players level of competition can be very low.
- Now I'm making something about the SAYC alone. Although it is not complitely finished, C-SAYC already works better tham the regular SAYC. The bids are the same, only the Counting and the Control Asking are modified for good.
- Let's make SAYC dangerous system, too !
- Anyone can find C-SAYC on http://bullbridge.com/generic46.html

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Dec 8 2004, 04:44 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 09:34 PM, said:

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

The one club opening bid describing any 10+ hand (well not any 10+ hand, but many 10+ hands) without a five card suit is. And indeed, pavell and his partner pass the 1♣ opening bid from time time to time. so it must be "natural" to me.... even if it might have only one club.

BTW, one pair I know plays 1♦ promises 5+ diamonds, along with five card majors, so they open 1♣ even wiht 4441 hands.. .the acbl people don't seem to mind one bit.

I should have been more clear:

The 1♣ opening is allowed at the GCC level, however, all responses other than 1♦ must be natural.

[Pavell]

hrothgar, on Dec 8 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 8 2004, 04:44 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 09:34 PM, said:

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

The one club opening bid describing any 10+ hand (well not any 10+ hand, but many 10+ hands) without a five card suit is. And indeed, pavell and his partner pass the 1♣ opening bid from time time to time. so it must be "natural" to me.... even if it might have only one club.

BTW, one pair I know plays 1♦ promises 5+ diamonds, along with five card majors, so they open 1♣ even wiht 4441 hands.. .the acbl people don't seem to mind one bit.

I should have been more clear:

The 1♣ opening is allowed at the GCC level, however, all responses other than 1♦ must be natural.

- After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), the NFP responses are more than Natural:
- any suit bid = 7+ HCP, 5+ cards
- NT bid or Double = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit (then you can show your 4 card suit, if you have enough HCP)
- There is not even a single non-natural response in NFP at all !

[hrothgar]

Pavell, on Dec 9 2004, 04:22 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 8 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 8 2004, 04:44 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 09:34 PM, said:

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

The one club opening bid describing any 10+ hand (well not any 10+ hand, but many 10+ hands) without a five card suit is. And indeed, pavell and his partner pass the 1♣ opening bid from time time to time. so it must be "natural" to me.... even if it might have only one club.

BTW, one pair I know plays 1♦ promises 5+ diamonds, along with five card majors, so they open 1♣ even wiht 4441 hands.. .the acbl people don't seem to mind one bit.

I should have been more clear:

The 1♣ opening is allowed at the GCC level, however, all responses other than 1♦ must be natural.

- After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), the NFP responses are more than Natural:
- any suit bid = 7+ HCP, 5+ cards
- NT bid or Double = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit (then you can show your 4 card suit, if you have enough HCP)
- There is not even a single non-natural response in NFP at all !

What do you bid with a 4441 hand and 10+ HCP?

If it's 1NT, the 1NT isn't natural...

[Pavell]

hrothgar, on Dec 8 2004, 09:42 PM, said:

Pavell, on Dec 9 2004, 04:22 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 8 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 8 2004, 04:44 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2004, 09:34 PM, said:

It seems quite clear that none of these openings are licensed by the GCC..

The one club opening bid describing any 10+ hand (well not any 10+ hand, but many 10+ hands) without a five card suit is. And indeed, pavell and his partner pass the 1♣ opening bid from time time to time. so it must be "natural" to me.... even if it might have only one club.

BTW, one pair I know plays 1♦ promises 5+ diamonds, along with five card majors, so they open 1♣ even wiht 4441 hands.. .the acbl people don't seem to mind one bit.

I should have been more clear:

The 1♣ opening is allowed at the GCC level, however, all responses other than 1♦ must be natural.

- After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), the NFP responses are more than Natural:
- any suit bid = 7+ HCP, 5+ cards
- NT bid or Double = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit (then you can show your 4 card suit, if you have enough HCP)
- There is not even a single non-natural response in NFP at all !

What do you bid with a 4441 hand and 10+ HCP?

If it's 1NT, the 1NT isn't natural...

- Of course, 1♣ = 10+, no 5 card suit, alerted. I'm using 1NT opening bid for 10+, any bi-color, alerted, and the response is 3+ card suit for attempt to find a Fit.

[hrothgar]

[quote name='Pavell' date='Dec 9 2004, 09:29 AM'] [/QUOTE]
What do you bid with a 4441 hand and 10+ HCP?

If it's 1NT, the 1NT isn't natural... [/QUOTE]
- Of course, 1[cl] = 10+, no 5 card suit, alerted. I'm using 1NT opening bid for 10+, any bi-color, alerted, and the response is 3+ card suit for attempt to find a Fit. [/quote]
Let me try again...

If partner opens 1[cl], what do you respond with 4441 shape and 10+ HCP?

Earlier you stated

>- After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), the NFP responses are
>more than Natural:
>- any suit bid = 7+ HCP, 5+ cards
>- NT bid or Double = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit (then you can show your 4 card
>suit, if you have enough HCP)
>- There is not even a single non-natural response in NFP at all !

If you include 4441 hands in your 1NT response (and I think that you have to), then your 1NT is clearly conventional

[inquiry]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:36 AM'] [quote name='Pavell' date='Dec 9 2004, 09:29 AM'] [/QUOTE]
What do you bid with a 4441 hand and 10+ HCP?

If it's 1NT, the 1NT isn't natural... [/QUOTE]
- Of course, 1[cl] = 10+, no 5 card suit, alerted. I'm using 1NT opening bid for 10+, any bi-color, alerted, and the response is 3+ card suit for attempt to find a Fit. [/QUOTE]
Let me try again...

If partner opens 1[cl], what do you respond with 4441 shape and 10+ HCP?

Earlier you stated

>- After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), the NFP responses are
>more than Natural:
>- any suit bid = 7+ HCP, 5+ cards
>- NT bid or Double = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit (then you can show your 4 card
>suit, if you have enough HCP)
>- There is not even a single non-natural response in NFP at all !

If you include 4441 hands in your 1NT response (and I think that you have to), then your 1NT is clearly conventional [/quote]
I wonder...

If you open 1NT naturally with 4441 hands (as I have seen plenty of experts do), is that a "convention"? I know there is a big difference between opening 1NT with the occassional singleton and responding 1NT promising a singleton. But this seems a question of fairness... If 1NT opening (as natural) is allowed with 4441 hands, would 1NT responses showing an unknown 4441 and (this is important), 1NT is not forcing in any way, is that allowed as "natural"?

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Dec 9 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

I wonder...

If you open 1NT naturally with 4441 hands (as I have seen plenty of experts do), is that a "convention"? I know there is a big difference between opening 1NT with the occassional singleton and responding 1NT promising a singleton. But this seems a question of fairness... If 1NT opening (as natural) is allowed with 4441 hands, would 1NT responses showing an unknown 4441 and (this is important), 1NT is not forcing in any way, is that allowed as "natural"?

The ACBL regulatory structure attempts to allow players to excercise judgement in a variety of cases. For example, players are able to excercise descretion and upgrade/downgrade hand strength.

Equivalently, the ACBL recognizes that it is occasionally best to treat exceptional unbalanced hands as if they were balanced. For example, playing a 15-17 NT, a hand such as

K
AT94
AQ4
KJ983

presents a number of problems in a traditional 5 card major based system. If the auction starts 1♣ - 1♠, opener is stuck for a rebid and a 1NT opening is the least of all evils.

However, as you yourself note, allowing lattitude for this type of exception is VERY different than allowing "natural" NT openings of any 4441 or 5431 hand pattern. As I recall, the word "exception" is even used in phrasing the appropriate regulations.

Its interesting to note that there are specific areas where the ACBL does not allow players to apply judgement. For example, players may not exercise judgement to upgrade exception 9 counts and treat them as a 10-12 NT.

[Pavell]

[quote name='inquiry' date='Dec 9 2004, 09:16 AM'] [quote name='hrothgar' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:36 AM'] [quote name='Pavell' date='Dec 9 2004, 09:29 AM'] [/QUOTE]
What do you bid with a 4441 hand and 10+ HCP?

If it's 1NT, the 1NT isn't natural... [/QUOTE]
- Of course, 1[cl] = 10+, no 5 card suit, alerted. I'm using 1NT opening bid for 10+, any bi-color, alerted, and the response is 3+ card suit for attempt to find a Fit. [/QUOTE]
Let me try again...

If partner opens 1[cl], what do you respond with 4441 shape and 10+ HCP?

Earlier you stated

>- After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), the NFP responses are
>more than Natural:
>- any suit bid = 7+ HCP, 5+ cards
>- NT bid or Double = 10+ HCP, no 5 card suit (then you can show your 4 card
>suit, if you have enough HCP)
>- There is not even a single non-natural response in NFP at all !

If you include 4441 hands in your 1NT response (and I think that you have to), then your 1NT is clearly conventional [/QUOTE]
I wonder...

If you open 1NT naturally with 4441 hands (as I have seen plenty of experts do), is that a "convention"? I know there is a big difference between opening 1NT with the occassional singleton and responding 1NT promising a singleton. But this seems a question of fairness... If 1NT opening (as natural) is allowed with 4441 hands, would 1NT responses showing an unknown 4441 and (this is important), 1NT is not forcing in any way, is that allowed as "natural"? [/quote]
- Yes, NFP's response to 1[cl] opening with 4441 is 1NT, alerted (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), but it is not mention in ACBL GCC like forbiden response, when alerted. With this shape, it is the only possible way to show to my partner, that I do not have any 5 card suit. What about the SAYC responses of 1NT to 1[sp] / 1[he] with a Void or a Singleton in the opening Major suit. Are they Conventions, too ?

[Pavell]

hrothgar, on Dec 9 2004, 09:29 AM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 9 2004, 05:16 PM, said:

I wonder...

If you open 1NT naturally with 4441 hands (as I have seen plenty of experts do), is that a "convention"? I know there is a big difference between opening 1NT with the occassional singleton and responding 1NT promising a singleton. But this seems a question of fairness... If 1NT opening (as natural) is allowed with 4441 hands, would 1NT responses showing an unknown 4441 and (this is important), 1NT is not forcing in any way, is that allowed as "natural"?

The ACBL regulatory structure attempts to allow players to excercise judgement in a variety of cases. For example, players are able to excercise descretion and upgrade/downgrade hand strength.

Equivalently, the ACBL recognizes that it is occasionally best to treat exceptional unbalanced hands as if they were balanced. For example, playing a 15-17 NT, a hand such as

K
AT94
AQ4
KJ983

presents a number of problems in a traditional 5 card major based system. If the auction starts 1♣ - 1♠, opener is stuck for a rebid and a 1NT opening is the least of all evils.

However, as you yourself note, allowing lattitude for this type of exception is VERY different than allowing "natural" NT openings of any 4441 or 5431 hand pattern. As I recall, the word "exception" is even used in phrasing the appropriate regulations.

Its interesting to note that there are specific areas where the ACBL does not allow players to apply judgement. For example, players may not exercise judgement to upgrade exception 9 counts and treat them as a 10-12 NT.

- Nice. But NFP doesn't use 1NT opening for the mentioned hand of 4441 and 5431 shapes. After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), alerted, it uses 1NT responding with 4441 (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit, too), also alerted. Is that forbiden by ACBL GCC ?

[hrothgar]

Pavell, on Dec 10 2004, 12:00 AM, said:

- Nice. But NFP doesn't use 1NT opening for the mentioned hand of 4441 and 5431 shapes. After 1♣ opening (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit), alerted, it uses 1NT responding with 4441 (10+ HCP, no 5 card suit, too), also alerted. Is that forbiden by ACBL GCC ?

For the third time!

The auction 1♣ - 1NT shows 10+ HCP and denies a 5+ card suit.

This response is not natural.
This response is not specifically sanctioned by the GCC
Therefore, this response is not permitted in GCC level events

This isn't rocket science