[relknes]

In some systems, after a forcing bid by partner, you are forced to "manufacture" a bid because you don't technically have the requirements to bid naturally. This is frequent in 2/1, for instance, when a forcing 1NT by partner can leave you a choice between rebidding that 5 card heart suit, or bidding 2m on a 3 card suit.
When is this sort of thing legal and when is it not legal? (I live in ACBL land, by the way)
For instance, I have been currious about a forcing 1♦ opening, where a 1NT response is an artificial game force asking for clarification. Would I have to allow responder to bid 2/1 with 0 points and a hand like 3-3-4-3 to make this legal, or can I allow responder to "manufacture" a bid on a 3 card major in that case?
Are there other cases when bids like this are legal?

[hrothgar]

I wouldn't categorize your 2/1 as a "manufactured" bid.

I'm not aware of a specific definition of "manufactured", however, from my perspective the critical component is that a manufactured bid violates the normal meaning of the bid.

Its true that auctions like

1♠ - 1N
2♣

could be made on a tripleton, however, this is systemic and expected.
I wouldn't describe this as "manufactured".

I'm going to quote from a thread on the MIT bridge club list last week.
I don't want to debate th merits of the bid, but rather offer this as a prototypical example of "manufacturing"

Quote

Board 1 last night:

J75432
KT
AKQ
J9

After two passes, I opened 1S and partner bid a forcing 1NT.

I rebid 2D (rather than 2S). No one at the post mortem or at the club thought I should have. Perhaps stubbornly, I think it still is the most flexible call.

· If partner has a 3 card limit raise, I’d bid 4S.

· If partner has a one suiter with hearts or diamonds + a stiff spade, we’ll be in a better strain.*

· If partner corrects to 2S with a doubleton, that should be the right spot.

· If partner has a weak one suited hand with clubs, we’re in trouble either way. Partner might pass when 1-3-3-6 or 1-4-3-5 when we could be better off in spades; surely that is a point against 2D.

[hrothgar]

Historically, the ACBL specifically allowed players to deviate from their agreements.

For example making a bid that supposedly promised 4 card support from the tripleton

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on 2011-February-12, 20:10, said:

Historically, the ACBL specifically allowed players to deviate from their agreements.

For example making a bid that supposedly promised 4 card support from the tripleton

If their agreement is to bid 2♣ on a three-card suit when holding a 5323 then it is not a deviation.

It then becomes an issue of whether or not under the ACBL alerting regulations a bid of a 3-card suit is natural.

[blackshoe]

Not exactly. Rather, there are two issues:

1. Is the agreement legal?
2. How shall it be disclosed?

[hrothgar]

relknes, on 2011-February-12, 20:06, said:

For instance, I have been currious about a forcing 1♦ opening, where a 1NT response is an artificial game force asking for clarification. Would I have to allow responder to bid 2/1 with 0 points and a hand like 3-3-4-3 to make this legal, or can I allow responder to "manufacture" a bid on a 3 card major in that case?
Are there other cases when bids like this are legal?

As a meta comment... I think that whole question of "manufactured bids" is a dangerous distraction from the real issue

1. An artificial forcing 1D opening is legal at the GCC level, so long as it promises 10+ HCPs
2. You're allowed to use 1NT as an artificial game forcing response, so long as its not part of a relay system
3. You're allowed to play anything that isn't specifically proscribed, starting with opener's second bid

What you're describing is clearly legal (so long as yo're not using a relay system)
What's the problem?

[suprgrover]

relknes, on 2011-February-12, 20:06, said:

(I live in ACBL land, by the way)
For instance, I have been curious about a forcing 1♦ opening, where a 1NT response is an artificial game force asking for clarification. Would I have to allow responder to bid 2/1 with 0 points and a hand like 3-3-4-3 to make this legal, or can I allow responder to "manufacture" a bid on a 3 card major in that case?

If the 1♦ call showed 15+ HCP, then any sort* of responses appear to be allowed under Item 7 of Responses and Rebids under the General Convention Chart (GCC) [see http://www.acbl.org/...ion-Chart.pdf]. If it falls under the catchall 10+ rubric, then responses need to be either natural or game-forcing. Here, "natural" means 4-card suits for the majors and 3-card suits for the minors. So, a 3-3-4-3 hand could bid 2C, even on a zero count. Starting with opener's second call, calls can have any meaning as long as they are constructive.

(*I do confess that a relay system appears to be both disallowed under Item 3 and allowed under Item 7 after a strong 1♣ or 1♦opening--I have always thought that the latter item overruled the former.)

[blackshoe]

Relay systems are explicitly disallowed. Item 5 under "disallowed".

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-14, 00:24, said:

Relay systems are explicitly disallowed. Item 5 under "disallowed".

Excuse my ignorance of the ACBL regulations, but how is a "relay system" defined? Can I play 2/1 but have some relay structures in some auctions, but not have "tell me more" type bids as a fundamental feature of all of our low level auction developments?

[relknes]

Hmmm... we seem to have differing answers. Let me try to simplify the question to see if that makes an answer more clear.
If I open 1♦ as a catch-all promising 10+ points, forcing for one round, is it legal to have as the response set:
1M = natural (sort of), forcing 1 round
1NT = balanced, invitational values
2/1 = natural game forcing
hrothgar seems to think that it is legal, even though responder might be forced to stretch in order to come up with a bid, while suprgrover seems to think that it is illegal, since responder might be forced to stretch to come up with a bid.

[hrothgar]

relknes, on 2011-February-14, 03:19, said:

Hmmm... we seem to have differing answers. Let me try to simplify the question to see if that makes an answer more clear.
If I open 1♦ as a catch-all promising 10+ points, forcing for one round, is it legal to have as the response set:
1M = natural (sort of), forcing 1 round
1NT = balanced, invitational values
2/1 = natural game forcing
hrothgar seems to think that it is legal, even though responder might be forced to stretch in order to come up with a bid, while suprgrover seems to think that it is illegal, since responder might be forced to stretch to come up with a bid.

I never said any such thing.

What I did say is that it is legal to play an artificial and game forcing 1NT response to a 1♦ opening.

I have no idea what a "sort of" natural 1M response means.
I most certainly did not say that such a response is legal.

If I had to guess, I'd suggest that the fact that you're forced to place the qualifier "sort of" on the word natural means that the 1M response is not natural and therefore not permitted.

[hrothgar]

mrdct, on 2011-February-14, 02:28, said:

Excuse my ignorance of the ACBL regulations, but how is a "relay system" defined? Can I play 2/1 but have some relay structures in some auctions, but not have "tell me more" type bids as a fundamental feature of all of our low level auction developments?

The ACBL defines "relay system" as

Quote

A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.

A more interesting question is "how is a relay bid defined?"

In year's past, the ACBL defined a relay bid as a bid that forces partner to make the cheapest possible response (thereby confusing a relay and a puppet)...
This created a lot of confusion amongst players who used actual relay systems who suspected that their methods were banned but couldn't really be sure.

[relknes]

Thanks for all of your replies.
So as I understand it, the answer to my orriginal question is, "Yes, if you have 1NT as an artificial GF, you have to sometimes allow partner to respond 2/1 even with 0 points."
Sorry that the way I orriginally phrased it caused so much confusion. I was currious because I asked a friend what to do with 4-5-2-2 and 12 points after opening 1♥ and having partner respond with a forcing 1NT. The way that the rebids were defined (as they were explained to me anyways) it seemed that I would have no legal rebid... not enough points to reverse... not enough hearts to rebid them... no 3 card minor to bid... but I am still forced to respond. When I asked him, he said that you prety much have to make up, or "manufacture", a bid, even though you don't technically have what is required. It seemed kind of silly, and seemed to leave the door open for other systems to try simmilar things.

[hrothgar]

relknes, on 2011-February-14, 12:28, said:

Thanks for all of your replies.
So as I understand it, the answer to my orriginal question is, "Yes, if you have 1NT as an artificial GF, you have to sometimes allow partner to respond 2/1 even with 0 points."
Sorry that the way I orriginally phrased it caused so much confusion. I was currious because I asked a friend what to do with 4-5-2-2 and 12 points after opening 1♥ and having partner respond with a forcing 1NT. The way that the rebids were defined (as they were explained to me anyways) it seemed that I would have no legal rebid... not enough points to reverse... not enough hearts to rebid them... no 3 card minor to bid... but I am still forced to respond. When I asked him, he said that you prety much have to make up, or "manufacture", a bid, even though you don't technically have what is required. It seemed kind of silly, and seemed to leave the door open for other systems to try similar things.

I'm still very confused

When you say "Allow partner to respond 2/1 even with zero points", which of the following auctions are you describing

1♦ - 2x

or

1♦ - 1N
2x

[relknes]

hrothgar, on 2011-February-14, 12:24, said:

I'm still very confused

When you say "Allow partner to respond 2/1 even with zero points", which of the following auctions are you describing

1♦ - 2x

or

1♦ - 1N
2x

1♦-2♣, and 1♦-2♦ would both have to be on 0+ points, otherwise 1♦-1M would not strictly promise 4 cards.

[hrothgar]

relknes, on 2011-February-14, 12:47, said:

1♦-2♣, and 1♦-2♦ would both have to be on 0+ points, otherwise 1♦-1M would not strictly promise 4 cards.

Now its starting to make sense...

The obvious rejoinder is "Why do you insist on playing a forcing 1D opening?"

As an analogy:

Playing MOSCITO, a 1♦ opening promises a limited hand with 4+ Hearts and 0+ diamonds.
The opening is most certainly artifical and most certain not forcing.

On occasion, we get passed out in a pretty ludicrous contract.
However, I don't see much hope in creating an intelligible response structure is 1D is forcing...

[relknes]

hrothgar, on 2011-February-14, 13:10, said:

Now its starting to make sense...

The obvious rejoinder is "Why do you insist on playing a forcing 1D opening?"

As an analogy:

Playing MOSCITO, a 1♦ opening promises a limited hand with 4+ Hearts and 0+ diamonds.
The opening is most certainly artifical and most certain not forcing.

On occasion, we get passed out in a pretty ludicrous contract.
However, I don't see much hope in creating an intelligible response structure is 1D is forcing...

The basic idea was to make 1♦ a 2-way bid, either a Fanturnes style 2 bid in a major, or 17+ with varrious minor oriented or balanced shapes.
The 1♣ opening bid would be the complementary bid, showing a Fanturnes style 2 bid in a minor, or 17+ with varrious major oriented or balanced shapes.
I won't get into detail in the simple rulings section, but if you are currious, the system is being discussed in "Back at the drawing board" under the non-natural systems section.

[hrothgar]

relknes, on 2011-February-14, 13:16, said:

The basic idea was to make 1♦ a 2-way bid, either a Fanturnes style 2 bid in a major, or 17+ with varrious minor oriented or balanced shapes.
The 1♣ opening bid would be the complementary bid, showing a Fanturnes style 2 bid in a minor, or 17+ with varrious major oriented or balanced shapes.
I won't get into detail in the simple rulings section, but if you are currious, the system is being discussed in "Back at the drawing board" under the non-natural systems section.

This opens a whole new can of worms:

1. I'd be shocked if you can squeeze this into the "all purpose" clause for the 1♦ opening
(This clause is intended to only sanction Precision type 1♦ openings)

2. I'd be even more shocked if you can get a suggested defense approved at the midchart level

[relknes]

hrothgar, on 2011-February-14, 13:40, said:

This opens a whole new can of worms:

1. I'd be shocked if you can squeeze this into the "all purpose" clause for the 1♦ opening
(This clause is intended to only sanction Precision type 1♦ openings)

2. I'd be even more shocked if you can get a suggested defense approved at the midchart level

Really? There are pleanty of "Strong diamond" systems out there, so are none of those legal in ACBL land? When I brought this up on the forums earlier, in the non-natural systems area, I was told this pair of bids was GCC legal. The main reason that I posted it when it was in the rough stages was to make sure that I didn't waste my time again developing a system I could never use, and I was assured that it was legal by several different people.

[hrothgar]

relknes, on 2011-February-14, 14:01, said:

Really? There are pleanty of "Strong diamond" systems out there, so are none of those legal in ACBL land? When I brought this up on the forums earlier, in the non-natural systems area, I was told this pair of bids was GCC legal. The main reason that I posted it when it was in the rough stages was to make sure that I didn't waste my time again developing a system I could never use, and I was assured that it was legal by several different people.

You might find the following URL very helpful

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...onvention+chart

After consulting said URL, please explain what clause in the GCC sanctions the 1D bid that you are describing:

Couple quick hints:

Your 1D opening isn't "strong" (It doesn't promise 15+ HCPs)
I don't think that your 1D opening is "All purpose"

In any case, opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.

At the end of the day, the only opinion that actually matter's is the ACBL...
(Regardless of what I or anyone else on this mailing list might believe, you need to ask Memphis)

As with any other dealing with Memphis, its best to use a triple modular redundancy to check for faults.