[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]

campboy, on 2011-November-11, 06:09, said:

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]

wyman, on 2011-November-07, 14:45, said:

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]

campboy, on 2011-November-11, 06:09, said:

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.