2m+1 "New Minor Forcing"

[wyman]

I've read various places on the forums that current thinking is that

 

1m - 1X

2m - 2m+1

 

is artificial and GF [not just F1, correct?]

 

Is this standard? and what are the common follow-up meta-agreements?

 

An example auction (though I'm interested in general as well):

1♣ - 1♠;

2♣ - 2♦;

3♣ - 3♥;

3N

 

What's (ostensibly) going on in this auction? Is 3H just a grope? What are opener's priorities over 3H?

[Zelandakh]

Here is one version available online with a reasonable amount of detail.

[Gerben42]

I think most play it as just invitational-plus, i.e. forcing for 1 round.

 

In this example auction:

 

1♣ - 1♠;

2♣ - 2♦;

3♣ = I still just have Clubs, sorry

- 3♥ = This creates the game force, and since we are bidding as natural as possible, this must show ♥ values and a ♦ problem.

3N

[Mbodell]

I have one partnership where 2m+1 is forcing and one where 3♣/2♦ and 2♦/2♣. In both cases it is artificial and game forcing and sort of feels like a 4sf response structure.

[wyman]

Thanks for the input. The page Zel included was particularly useful.

[campboy]

This is also sometimes called "Bourke relay"; Tournament Acol by Bird and Bourke includes a discussion of it.

[wyman]

This is also sometimes called "Bourke relay"; Tournament Acol by Bird and Bourke includes a discussion of it.

 

Thank you thank you.

 

It's nice to have a reference to point to when discussing this with new partners.

[bd71]

An example auction (though I'm interested in general as well):

1♣ - 1♠;

2♣ - 2♦;

3♣ - 3♥;

3N

 

What's (ostensibly) going on in this auction? Is 3H just a grope? What are opener's priorities over 3H?

 

Since nobody's taken you up on this, I'll take a shot at interpreting. Am assuming that 2♦ was an artificial GF bid. I also haven't looked at any of the writeups to see if any of this is addressed specifically, so this is just trying to apply NMF/4SF type of logic to this situation.

 

3♣: denies 4♥, denies 3♠, denies 4♦, by infererence from all that shows 5+♣, denies having BOTH ♦/♥ stoppers for NT

 

3♥: showing 4♥ (and 5♠ by implication). You ask if this is "just groping"...seems like what is effectively the 2nd descriptive bid of your hand should still be honest, showing a full 4♥. You can save the "groping"/fragment-showing for the 3rd descriptive bid if needed.

 

3N: ♦ stopped, willing to play NT across from a 54xx shape. Likely 2335. Maybe 1336 or 2236.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

This is also sometimes called "Bourke relay"; Tournament Acol by Bird and Bourke includes a discussion of it.

Yes, the Bourke Relay was written up in BW a few years back ( I believe ) .

Here is an example:

 

To take the easiest auction:

 

1c 1s 2c ?

 

2d = art GF

2h = natural, constructive

2s = to play

2nt = natural, invitational

3c = natural, invitational

3d / 3h = I am not sure but I think Bourke plays this as an

invitational two suiter

3s = natural, invitational

3nt = natural, to play

- - - - - - - - - - -

To take the hardest auction:

 

1h 1s 2h ?

 

2s = to play

2nt = natural, invitational

3c = art GF

3d = natural, invitational

3h = natural, invitational

3s = natural invitational

3nt = to play

[han]

If you are willing to introduce some artificiality then you can use the first steps to show 4-5 distribution:

 

1C - 1S

2c - 2D:

 

2H = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds

2S = 5 clubs, 4 hearts

 

1C - 1H

2C - 2D:

 

2H = 5 clubs, 4 diamonds

 

1D - 1S

2D - 2H:

 

2S = 5 diamonds, 4 hearts

 

This has the advantage that all higher steps promise a 6-card minor.