BBO Discussion Forums: forcing pass situation or not ? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

forcing pass situation or not ?

#1 User is offline   kdr_fm 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 2009-January-27

Posted 2017-September-09, 06:45

Imps Vul all

S Kx
H x
D AJxxxx
C Kxxx


1S 2H Dbl 3H
4S 5H ??


What do you bid? Is pass forcing ?
0

#2 User is offline   P_Marlowe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,041
  • Joined: 2005-March-18
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-September-09, 07:38

X.

Pass is not forcing.
Only opener knowes, if he intended to bid 4S to make or not.

With kind regards
Marlowe
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
0

#3 User is offline   gszes 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,018
  • Joined: 2011-February-12

Posted 2017-September-09, 09:05

This should not be a FP situation as there has never been a time the bidding has indicated it is OUR hand. IMHO our hand has improved significantly and I do not think we have anything to fear from continuing with a 5s bid. Partner should realize this is being bid with the expectation of making vs a sacrifice since our previous bidding has eliminated the large trump fit crossruff scenario that usually makes for a good sac. Game before slam but I would have some sympathy for anyone that felt the need to bid 6s due to the vast improvement of our hand. I just feel it is best to let partner make the decision to bid more.
0

#4 User is offline   The_Badger 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 616
  • Joined: 2013-January-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, Chess, Film, Literature, Herbal Medicine, Nutrition

Posted 2017-September-09, 11:29

Why complicate things by trying to work out if it is a forcing pass here - in my opinion, agreeing entirely with the other posters, it isn't - just bid 5.

You have a little bit more in the locker room than partner would anticipate, even vulnerable.
0

#5 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,840
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2017-September-10, 08:50

Seems to be easy enough to imagine a hand where, on this auction. third hand would be happy to sell to 5H undoubled . He should be able to express this view, so I don't see pass as forcing. This seems to agree with everyone else.

I go with 5S, My Kx should solve any problems in that suit, after which we might do it on power, we might do it by establishing long diamonds and getting there in clubs, one way or another we might well just do it. While this could be wrong, I think I am in a better position than partner to make the presumably final guess, so I make it.

The 5 level belongs to me. Or something like that.
Ken
0

#6 User is offline   Joe_Old 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 2016-December-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 2017-September-10, 09:15

This is not a forcing pass situation only because the negative double is ambiguous. Classically, it promises 10+ HCP (which would make this a forcing pass situation), but nobody plays it that way any more. In the example hand, it could be distributional, and you have to take action to tell partner that you have, in context, a big hand.

One treatment is to use a double as control showing and slam invitational, promising prime cards in the unbid suits and secondary spade support. 5NT (not what I would bid here) would be pick a slam (anything but hearts).

Lacking specific agreements, I'd ask about the point range for the2 bid; if they promise an opening hand I'd settle for 5, if they play it as a simple overcall I'd worry about missing slam (is the 2 bidder serious about that 5 call?).
0

#7 User is offline   bberris 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 2010-May-31

Posted 2017-September-10, 10:14

Agree with the posters it is not a forcing pass. Opener may have stretched. If he had bid 4H instead of 4S, that would create a forcing pass. A more interesting problem, what if the 3H bidder had instead jumped to 4H. Now opener has no way to distinguish good stretch bids. In that case pass should not be forcing either. I think FP should be reserved for clear-cut situations where we are strong and the other side is saving. Not the case here or in the situation I described.
0

#8 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,023
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2017-September-10, 13:23

All of the above covers this case. I believe FP should apply far less often, and only in thoroughly pre-discussed situations.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#9 User is offline   Caitlynne 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 201
  • Joined: 2015-October-09

Posted 2017-September-11, 14:11

Forcing pass situations are typically the purview of partnership agreement.

That said, there are guidelines that are widely accepted as "assumed" or "standard" and virtually all of these guidelines are captured in Eddie Kantar's pamphlet The Forcing Pass, which is a series of articles written for the ACBL Bulletin over a period of years many decades ago.

One of Kantar's principles is this: If your side is vulnerable and bids game without being compelled to the game level to compete for the declarership, the auction becomes forcing.

Opener/Responder are vulnerable and 4S was a game bid voluntarily bid by the partnership (i.e., 3S was sufficient to compete for the contract) so this is a forcing auction (if Responder calls Pass).

That said, Responder has a rock. King of trump! A second trump (when none were promised)! Control of all side suits. A SIX card long side suit headed by an Ace (and a lower honor)! Control of their suit due to shortness (the best kind to suggest well fitting values)! The King of the fourth suit.

Can opener really be bidding game on less than AQJxxx in spades, At least one side Ace, and another card or two when vulnerable?

AQJxxx
xxx
Qx
Ax

is a 3S bid. Anything more, e.g.,

AQJxxx
xxx
Kx
Ax

and slam is virtually cold. I bid 6S. That says I got a rock with a singleton heart. Partner will now know what to do.

Caitlynne
0

#10 User is offline   mikestar13 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 537
  • Joined: 2010-October-27
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redlands, CA USA

Posted 2017-September-11, 21:25

At equal vulnerability, 4 is unlikely to be an out and out save, but could easily be a make or save two-way shot. I would not want pass to be forcing. At matcpoints there an argument that it should be, but this is imps. I think most of us would be better off with fewer forcing passes, not more.

The rule I suggest:

Passes are forcing if and only if our partnership has done one of the following unmistakably based on strength not shape only:
  • Voluntarily bid game.
  • Forced to game.
  • Opened a natural 2NT.
  • Doubled for penalty (distressingly uncommon in the modern game).
  • Redoubled for business.

0

#11 User is offline   kdr_fm 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 2009-January-27

Posted 2017-September-13, 13:28

View Postmikestar13, on 2017-September-11, 21:25, said:

At equal vulnerability, 4 is unlikely to be an out and out save, but could easily be a make or save two-way shot. I would not want pass to be forcing. At matcpoints there an argument that it should be, but this is imps. I think most of us would be better off with fewer forcing passes, not more.

The rule I suggest:

Passes are forcing if and only if our partnership has done one of the following unmistakably based on strength not shape only:
  • Voluntarily bid game.
  • Forced to game.
  • Opened a natural 2NT.
  • Doubled for penalty (distressingly uncommon in the modern game).
  • Redoubled for business.



One of Kantar's principles is this: If your side is vulnerable and bids game without being compelled to the game level to compete for the declarership, the auction becomes forcing.

Opener/Responder are vulnerable and 4S was a game bid voluntarily bid by the partnership (i.e., 3S was sufficient to compete for the contract) so this is a forcing auction (if Responder calls Pass).


I think most people agreed that a voluntary bid vul game creates a forcing pass. You very rarely bid vul games with the intention of going down. I don't understand this notion that it is 2 way or an advanced save. The opening bid and the dbl make it clear we hold the majority of the points. Why on earth would you advance sacrifice against a contract which (a) may not be bid (b) is unlikely to make. If you can't make 4S don't bid it. Bid 3S and if the opps bid on now at least partner has a say or at the very least NOW you can decide to bid 4S.

*IF* we are in a forcing pass situation (and I believe we are) then pass is clearcut. If partner bids 5S we probably let it go. If partner doubles we can bid 5S which shows a slam try and avoids the immediate 6S guess or we might consider passing and trying for 800. I think most of us would be better off understanding or at least agreeing under what circumstances a forcing pass exists not dismissing them.
0

#12 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,323
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-September-13, 17:37

View PostCaitlynne, on 2017-September-11, 14:11, said:

That said, there are guidelines that are widely accepted as "assumed" or "standard" and virtually all of these guidelines are captured in Eddie Kantar's pamphlet The Forcing Pass...

One of Kantar's principles is this: If your side is vulnerable and bids game without being compelled to the game level to compete for the declarership, the auction becomes forcing.

This is not one of the widely guidelines.

Quote

Can opener really be bidding game on less than AQJxxx in spades, At least one side Ace, and another card or two when vulnerable?

Yes.
Obviously we have a recall bias in favour of the assholes. -helene_t
1

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users