frisbee

I became a director in 1973 when I was a club manager. :)

Thanks for the correction, Steve. The Laws have changed at least four times and the Convention and Alert charts many more than that since I started playing. The GCC does state what you printed. Also notice that the Alert Chart specifies that such a game forcing bid is Alertable. So players must remember to Alert such a bid (2♣ in the auction under discussion) when it is made and to be prepared to recite exactly what your meaning of the bid is ... "game forcing" is absolutely not acceptable as an explanation; as with any Alert it must be described fully and not simply given a (common) name of a convention. As the GCC mentions, such a bid cannot simply be used as a relay.

"A Director would penalize this pair if they bid 2♣ in an ACBL GCC tnmt, even if they Alert 2♣ as artificial." Some have asked me privately why this is not allowed in ACBL tournaments, and the simple answer is that it is not permitted by the ACBL General Convention Chart (GCC) which is required to be followed in the great majority of ACBL tnmts. Unless playing in the elite sections that permit more than GCC-level conventions, you cannot bid 2♣ without a club suit. The ACBL tournaments on BBO specify that players must follow the GCC, despite what some players get away with and despite what some directors do not want to object to. I hope the ACBL Robot tnmts are also forced to follow GCC, but the Robots have been programmed otherwise ... and this needs to be corrected.

31 Jul 2014, Robot tnmt #7339, board 7, both vul, S deals. 2/1 Robot North holds: ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦A97 ♣K4. South opens 1♥ and North responds 2♣. Please correct this extremely bad robot bidding. Have it respond 1♠ to show a real suit instead of making a 2/1 game forcing bid in a suit that it does not hold. (A Director would penalize this pair if they bid 2♣ in an ACBL GCC tnmt, even if they Alert 2♣ as artificial.) We have enough trouble breaking 2/1 students of the very bad habit of making a 2-over-1 bid when a 1-over-1 bid is much more descriptive and appropriate. Holding ♠AQT52 ♥942 ♦9 ♣AK74, the correct response to 1♥ is still 1♠ and not 2♣. Developing 2/1 bidders need to understand that it is more important to show their strength AND their distribution than to just make a game forcing bid. Awful bidding by the 2/1 robots when they hold game forcing hands sends students the wrong message. Please correct the 2/1 robot bidding philosophy when it holds a game forcing hand. We will all appreciate it. Thanks.

Especially when playing your favorite version of 2/1, if you insist that you must open a very BAD 6-4 hand with 1♠, then rebid 2♠ to try to limit your hand immediately instead of rebidding 2♥. Remember that you are playing 2/1 and not Standard American. Give Partner a chance to find the best contract. With a GOOD 6-4, you would rebid 2♥. I suspect there are more extensive discussions of the GOOD/BAD 6-4 philosophy elsewhere in the forums.