[shyams]

Specifically for MPs. We agree to play 2/1GF, 15-17 NT, Inverted Minors

Part A:

---

Assuming a strong player is South but you are a pick-up partnership and have not discussed follow-ups in detail.

1. Is South's 2♣ encouraging, discouraging or forcing?
2. If South had instead rebid 3♣, would that be encouraging, discouraging or forcing?

If you held the below hand as North and you know E/W to be a strong pair who bid aggressively, do you pass or bid 3♣? Both sides non-vul

---

-------

Placeholder for Part B: To be added in, if I still have unresolved doubts.

..

[smerriman]

What type of checkback you play should be one of the first things you discuss, shouldn't it? Trying to guess isn't really bridge. I would assume 2♣ is a signoff, a jump to 3♣ is invitational, but whether it is or isn't, discuss it before the next hand..

[shyams]

smerriman, on 2025-April-20, 23:41, said:

What type of checkback you play should be one of the first things you discuss, shouldn't it? Trying to guess isn't really bridge. I would assume 2♣ is a signoff, a jump to 3♣ is invitational, but whether it is or isn't, discuss it before the next hand..

Let's assume NMF is part of the understanding.

So a INV+ hand with South would go through 2♦ which need not be a natural diamond suit but instead asks North to describe further (e.g. showing 3-card support for ♥)

[smerriman]

If you've now agreed NMF, then an invitational hand could bid 2NT, or 3♣, or 2♦; but I don't really need to know what they have since I have well defined responses. 2♣ remains a signoff.

[awm]

2♣ is sign-off, and I wouldn’t bid 3♣ on a 3334 hand.

One of 3♣ and 2♦…3♣ should be invitational and the other game force. I think it’s more common to play 3♣ as the invite but either is playable.