RipFlow

Having read both the original ruling to Kwiktrix, and the later ruling issued in 2011 (post#46), it appears that they are unrelated. They may be referring to the same calls, but Kurt's context was specific to canapé, and the later ruling appeared to be quite general. We do not know the context that the later ruling was made, and none was offered - if it was asked in the context of a 2/1 system or Standard, the 1M response promising only 3+ cards is something most folks have never heard of, nor probably ever considered, so it makes sense that it would be considered conventional.

The document that bears some looking into is the Alert Procedure Handbook. On page 7, you will find this: "When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents’ attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents." Is it right for me to assume then, in general, canape is allowed in the GCC? Second, as far as a 3+ card major being a natural bid - I only have to go to Page 8 of the same handbook: "Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted." The wording specifically says promises ABOUT the expected shape. How much closer to a 4-card suit can a 3-card suit be. Is that not "about" the expected length? Could I argue that my 3+ major response does not need to be alerted? Maybe, but I will continue to Alert until I get a director telling me I should not Alert. I alert as I consider it to be a treatment as explained in the very next sentence above. Summarizing, it appears that the intent of the ACBL, by the various wording in the Alert Handbook, is not to discourage use of a canape system, just to provide full disclosure.

One other quick point - the GCC statement that unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed seems not to hold true for certain bids. Under Responses and Rebids, #2, it says that a 1NT response to a major suit opening forcing for one round. Nowhere does it say that it can be semi-forcing, or non forcing. So should they be disallowed? Certainly not. Yet there is no definition of what a "natural" 1NT response should be. And if I have to look into the Alert Procedures handbook to find it, why can't I look at that same book to help me understand a 3+ card major response?

Let's say your authority to state that a 1 level major response is not natural is Definition 1 of the GCC. The GCC, however, in Definition 6 leads me to believe it is NOT conventional either. That definition states that a convention is a bid or a call not necessarily related to the denomination named. In the sequences we are interested in, 1♥ means hearts and 1♠ means spades. It is not like 1♥ means spades. Therefore, I feel that since it is not a convention, but rather a treatment (unless you have another word for it), it is not subject to GCC, but it must be alerted as it is rather unusual.