[biggerclub]

What authorities (Kantar, Root, French) I could find are split. I personally like invitational, but I want to hear from the community.

Wiki-pedia claims invitational and gives a general reference to "The Bridge Guys" regarding their whole article. There is no specific reference provided for the statement that this jump rebid is invitational (I wish I knew how to add one of those "citation needed" thingys on a wiki page). I could not see where The Bridge Guys' page addresses this question on any of multiple pages regarding NMF.

[whereagles]

In old SAYC it was forcing, but it has since evolved to non-forcing, invite.

The reason is you can use NMF (or any other relay) for the forcing variant:

1m 1M
1NT 2♣
2x 3M = forcing.

Note this approach fits well the "fast/slow arrival" principle.

Same goes for non-NT rebids:

1x 1M
2x/y 3M = NF 6+ cards, invite.

1x 1M
2x/y relay (e.g. 3rd/4th suit forcing)
any 3M = forcing 6+ cards, slam try.

[biggerclub]

It came up in a Regional yesterday. I have a hand chock full of intermediates -- something like Q9x, ATxx, KQx, KTx.

Auction goes, 1c (me) 1s (partner) 1N 3s . . . and I tank. Hold my nose and decide to bid 3n. All pass.

Partner tables AKJTxx, Jx, Axx, Qx and I gasp.

We now agree that jumps to three of any previously bid suit are invitational. My appeal to Kantar (who she personally knows) prevailed.

[trevahound]

It's more useful (IMO) to play it as forcing. It's a huge loss of room for an invite, and there's enough room left over it if it's GF/Slammish. Some version of 2 way NMF or XYZ type gadget allows you to use 2c first with all invites (1m - 1M // 1nt - 2c), over which partner puppets 2d, and you can now rebid 2M with the hand that others in the field have to jump to 3M to invite with. You stop a whole level lower when partner declines, and if necessary you have room for a oounter GT (not that I play those) or a strain improvement. FWIW.

Cheers,

Brian Zaugg

[blackshoe]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-07, 09:34, said:

It came up in a Regional yesterday. I have a hand chock full of intermediates -- something like Q9x, ATxx, KQx, KTx.

Auction goes, 1c (me) 1s (partner) 1N 3s . . . and I tank. Hold my nose and decide to bid 3n. All pass.

Partner tables AKJTxx, Jx, Axx, Qx and I gasp.

We now agree that jumps to three of any previously bid suit are invitational. My appeal to Kantar (who she personally knows) prevailed.

Interesting hand. If I'm reading it right, you can make 5NT on a non-heart lead, but if you get a heart lead you'd better take your ten tricks right away. 5♠ looks to me to be cold.

[biggerclub]

trevahound, on 2014-July-07, 10:35, said:

It's more useful (IMO) to play it as forcing. It's a huge loss of room for an invite, and there's enough room left over it if it's GF/Slammish. Some version of 2 way NMF or XYZ type gadget allows you to use 2c first with all invites (1m - 1M // 1nt - 2c), over which partner puppets 2d, and you can now rebid 2M with the hand that others in the field have to jump to 3M to invite with. You stop a whole level lower when partner declines, and if necessary you have room for a oounter GT (not that I play those) or a strain improvement. FWIW.

Cheers,

Brian Zaugg

In theory, I agree. But we don't play 2-way, I don't want to overload partner and I am trying to teach her (even though I am not getting paid) how to bid with "most" partners (hence the poll -- and also hence the appeal to Kantar whose protege is the teaching guru in our club).

I thought that with NMF most play the jump to 3 in a previously bid suit as INV.

[biggerclub]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-07, 14:44, said:

Interesting hand. If I'm reading it right, you can make 5NT on a non-heart lead, but if you get a heart lead you'd better take your ten tricks right away. 5♠ looks to me to be cold.

Obviously I did not expect her to be that strong, or I would have started investigating slam, despite my min.

Take away the Ks (replace it with a small one) and Jh, for example and I think 9 tricks in NT will be easier than 10 in S most of the time, despite the 9 card fit.

There was a +680 on the score sheet. Don't ask me. People do revoke, I guess. As it was, the lead was a diamond, taken in hand by K. I led a C and LHO hops up with the A, switches to a H, taken by the A. I untangle the Cs using diamonds for transportation and throw the JH on the KC. Then claim.

[aguahombre]

If partner trusted you to have a 1NT rebid (no singleton spade, 12-14 pts) he has enough to place the contract in 4S and move on without wasting energy on torture.

The authorities you seek to cite don't like torture or abuse of NMF either. Add a King to responder, and THEN we have something to talk about if you have a decent follow-up structure after NMF.

[blackshoe]

biggerclub, on 2014-July-07, 15:23, said:

Take away the Ks (replace it with a small one) and Jh, for example and I think 9 tricks in NT will be easier than 10 in S most of the time, despite the 9 card fit.

Sure. I was just commenting on what could be made with the actual hands.

[mikestar13]

Invitational, this fits the current consensus. Other possibilities may be more efficient for regular partnerships who put in work on these sequences. Personally, my preference is forcing, in a context where 1♣-2♠=weakish, 6 cards, up to a seven count. Then 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♠=6 spades, constructive to invitational (8-11).

[SteveMoe]

Close "other" because this really depends on agreements as many posters show.
Vanilla 1-way this is usually invitational (see Hardy 1974 or so). But historical precedent and normative use aren't necessarily the same thing.
2-way/xyz this can be/is slammish - setting trumps and demanding cue bidding (GF only through 2♦).

Swapping 2♣ and immediate jump meanings is possible with partnership agreement.

[Siegmund]

The majority view these days is to play it INV - just as people play 1C-1H-1S-3C/3H INV - but I think putting all the invitations into (1-way) checkback and having the jumps be GF is far better. Not sure why, other than mere fashion, the invitational 3-level jumps ever became popular at all.

[whereagles]

Siegmund, on 2014-July-07, 21:38, said:

I think putting all the invitations into (1-way) checkback and having the jumps be GF is far better.

I've been thinking of this inversion for some time now and the issue is complicated. I'll get back to this when I conclude my investigations

[kenberg]

I may have to dig out my old Goren [Correction, I did dig it out and what I said here, now eraased, was historically wrong. 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♠ was forcing for Goren].

Back to the present.

My preference is a global default: Second round non-reversal jumps by responder are invitational One can make specific exceptions, but the overall default makes life easy in undiscussed auctions. So 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♠ is invitational, a gf hand starts with fourth suit forcing. And 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♥ is, contrary to what one might expect, invitational. With a gf 5-5 we go through new minor.

If you and your partner had not, before it came up in play, discussed the fairly common auction of 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♠ then I can imagine that there are a number of other auctions that you also have not discussed. I often play with people with whom I have had very little detailed discussions. Global defaults such as I suggest can be very useful. You can make exceptins to the defaults when you have time for discussion.

Added: Or you can, as suggested, do an inversion. Also global I gather. This may well be better, I have no strong opinion.

Perhaps of interest: I was watching a friendly online game with four very good players, names known to all. They had an auction beginning 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♦-3♥-4NT. What's 4NT? The 4NT bidder and his partner had different opinions.The point here is that the very best can have misunderstandings, even in uncontested auctions. If they have misunderstandings, how about us mere mortals? A less than optimal agreement does not necessarily lead to disaster. A total misunderstanding of meaning usually does.

[biggerclub]

kenberg, on 2014-July-08, 06:15, said:

. . . .

Perhaps of interest: I was watching a friendly online game with four very good players, names known to all. They had an auction beginning 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♦-3♥-4NT. What's 4NT? The 4NT bidder and his partner had different opinions.The point here is that the very best can have misunderstandings, even in uncontested auctions. If they have misunderstandings, how about us mere mortals? A less than optimal agreement does not necessarily lead to disaster. A total misunderstanding of meaning usually does.

Two suits have been bid and supported, and a player jumps to 4NT. This must be A asking and the only real question is do we play 6 Card KCBW? Perhaps my friend, Danny Kleinman who is constantly promoting doing away with Blackwood Ace asking altogether may have a different view . . . .

What pray tell did the partner not asking for aces think it meant?

[mikeh]

At the risk of a bit of thread hi-jack, my take on the OP is that jump rebids are usually, these days, played as invitational over opener's 1N rebid, but that in the context of a 2-way new minor structure, all 3 level rebids by responder should be played as narrowly constrained slam tries.

Jump rebid of suit = strong 6+ suit, with slam interest. Weaker 6 card suits, with the same overall values, go through the 2♦ gf relay first. This allows opener to evaluate better. On the slow route, opener needs a trump card to be encouraged, while on the fast route he can focus more on side suit quality.

Jumpshifts, including into opener's suit, are strong 5=5 or better, with good suits, while the slow route promises similar values overall, but with side cards and weaker suits. Again, this helps opener evaluate.

When playing 2 way, one can lump various invitational hands into the 2♣ puppet sequences with little cost, and can also put responder's 2N 'raise' to good use as an artificial call (I use it as a puppet to 3♣, to play or, if I bid again, to show various slam tries with only 4 cards in my first suit and 5+ in partner's, but one can use one's imagination).

[kenberg]

I don't want to dwell on this and divert the thread, I just wanted to point out the many possibilities for confusion. But I will say what I can.

As I understood, it one thought it was rkc for one of the red suits, the other took it as a non-specific slam invitation in diamonds.. Apparently in some situations they use 4NT not as rkc but in this way to generally invite. I could imagine that 4♠ would be a kickback bid. Or possibly a two-suit rkc. Ort it could be many things. Part of their discussion centered around the fact that the 2♦ reverse is sometimes a made up reverse with long clubs and great strength.

Really I am not qualified to even report on their discussion, I did not follow all of it. A lot could be said, but that's for another thread.

My point: For mortals, mere or otherwise, some broad agreements such as "Second round non-reverse jumps by responder are always invitational (or always forcing if one prefers) can be very useful in keeping a partnership out of the woods.

[Siegmund]

Quote

My preference is a global default: Second round non-reversal jumps by responder are invitational ....
Added: Or you can, as suggested, do an inversion. Also global I gather. This may well be better, I have no strong opinion.

Yes, definitely, a global rule makes for many fewer accidents. (The only exception I and my partners ever had was 1m-1M-1N-3C and that bit us more times than anything else.)

As for the history, my impression is that ALL 2nd round jumps forcing -- 1C-1H-1S-2NT/3C/3H/3S and 1C-1H-1NT-3C/3D/3H -- is what Goren used, and what "everybody" used in the 50s and 60s books. Goldman's Aces Scientific book strikes me as having broken new groud, using 1C-1H-1S-3S as invitational even though some of the other jumps were GF. That one change, by itself, wasn't a bad one, but it inspired a halfway mess. The widespread use of invitational jumps appeared to me to come in with the change to 2/1.

[johnu]

Siegmund, on 2014-July-08, 23:37, said:

As for the history, my impression is that ALL 2nd round jumps forcing -- 1C-1H-1S-2NT/3C/3H/3S and 1C-1H-1NT-3C/3D/3H -- is what Goren used, and what "everybody" used in the 50s and 60s books. Goldman's Aces Scientific book strikes me as having broken new groud, using 1C-1H-1S-3S as invitational even though some of the other jumps were GF. That one change, by itself, wasn't a bad one, but it inspired a halfway mess. The widespread use of invitational jumps appeared to me to come in with the change to 2/1.

My guess is that invitational jumps instead of forcing jumps happened when new minor forcing became popular.

[kenberg]

Corrected.

Not for the first time, and no doubt not for the last, I confess error.
I dug out Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete, copyright 1959 Page 107. Hand 30:

1♣-1♠
1NT- 3♠

This is described as a game force.