[inquiry]

temp3600, on Dec 22 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

I disagree with several posts in this thread.

First, about the Robson & Segal rule, "any invitational or better bid creates a forcing pass if opps bid to the FIVE level", I really think it is meant as "any (invitational) OR (better)", rather than "any (invitational or better)". The latter seems way too specific, while the former makes a lot of sense : if we have an opening hand facing an (invitational) OR (better) hand, we are not letting them play at the 5 level undoubled.

Which brings me to the forcing pass. I think that the situation here is a little strange, in that it IS a forcing pass, according to the rule, but one of our choices - we bid on - has been made impossible by our previous bids. So, since we cannot let them play undoubled at the 5 level, we are left with the only choice to double them.

Ahmmm....

What lets break this down. First, Robson and Segal already defined game forcing hands establish a forcing pass situation (but not if a direct raise, as that could be preemptive). Within that context (game forcing establishing a forcing pass situation), what and the "better" in "invitational or better" mean. If it is better than invitational, wouldn't that be game forcing? And if that is true, how can "invitational or better" mean "invitational or game forcing" since the earlier condition already applied.

No, they meant exactly what they suggested, the bid was "invitational or better". The example would be...

1H-(2C)-2NT-(5C)

where 2NT was limit raise or better. A pass by opener would express uncertainty about rather to defend 5C or bid 5H. In fact ths is a precise auction they give on page 46 and describe 2NT as "showed a limit raise or better with four (plus) hearts" and a pass of 5♣ would be forcing. Interestingly, similar auction show at the same time was 1H-(1S)-2NT-4S and pass of 4♠ would NOT BE forcing despite 2NT being limit raise or better.

And in this example, if your agreement is they have to play 5♣ doubled on your auction, what reason was there for opener to pass? I mean, under your rules it simply has to be played doubled, why pass, just double and be done with it. Pass has to be a poor opening hand with probably only one sure defensive trick at most. With two, clearly double would have occurred.

Finally for the record, here are Robson/Segal rules from page 46 of their excellent book.. read option 4 carefully and not their quote marks.

(1) A natural raise to any level NEVER sets up a forcing pass.

(2) A fit-jump or splinter-jump only sets up a forcing pass if you are at ‘red’ and are raising to the four level
(or higher)

(3) A cue-bid in the opponents’ suit showing a high-card raise sets up a forcing pass if you are raising to the
four level.

(4) A bid showing ‘limit or better’ values creates a forcing pass if and only if opponents bid to the five level (or
higher).

LIMIT or BETTER means a bid that is at worse a limit invite, but can be stronger. So play this pass as forcing if you want (it really DOES NOT make bridge sense to do so) but don't say you have support from Robson/Segal for your view.

[temp3600]

Let me quote this sentence, p. 47, that follows the 1♥ (2♣) 2NT (5♣) [1] example : "Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction [1] to set up a forcing pass". If you agree with this premise, how many defensive tricks do you think an opening bid facing an 11-12 HCP balanced hand will take? And the follow-up question : do you want to let the opponents play 5♣ undoubled?

I firmly believe that if you adhere to Robson & Segal's view, you cannot let the opponents play 5♣ undoubled in the given auction. And since you clearly do not want to play at the 5 level, then you have to double them. So yes, declarer should have doubled, made a mistake by passing, and after his pass, responder has to double.

I'll agree that I was wrong about point (4) above. I reread the passage and it is meant as 'limit raise or better', not the meaning I suggested.

[inquiry]

Quote

I'll agree that I was wrong about point (4) above. I reread the passage and it is meant as 'limit raise or better', not the meaning I suggested.

Ok we are getting halfway home... let's look at the sentence you quoted from page 47....

Quote

[1] example : "Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction [1] to set up a forcing pass".

You conviently left off the first opart of the sentence, the full passage reads....
"2NT showed a limit raise or better with four (plus) hearts. Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction (1) to set up a forcing pass"

So this double falls firmly within their rule #4, Limit raise or better. Also note another difference here South didn't GET A CHANCE to express an opinion about rather to bid 4♥ or not. North showed a "relatively balanced" limit raise or better and the next hand bid 5♣. This is quite different from our auction here. First, the degree of fit in this thread is uncertain (probably 6-2). Second, both partners have greatly limited their hands (forcing 1NT, 2S rebid, 2NT rebid). The situations are not the same at all. On the Limit raise or better hand (their example 1.), a nine card fit in hearts is assured, 2.) bidding on to 5♥ is a possibility, and 3.) responder is still unlimited by their own definition.

I encourage you to take another look at the two auctions (their #1 and the one in this thread again, and to look at meaning of their 2NT (limit raise or better with four card --plus-- support) versus 2NT in this auction (balanced 10-12, no 3 card spade fit) and determine why they would play pass of 5♣ as forcing in their case, but never, ever in this one.

The premise over rahter or not they can make 5♣ is a different issue. I suspect 5♣ will be doubled 90% of the time or higher. Openers pass simply says one thing, his hand is not very defensive... but it is not a forcing pass, it is not inviting 5♠ bid, and responder can adhere to any decision about tricks he likes. But with the realization that the pass by opener clearly denied three defensive tricks and probably two certain ones. The fact that your bridge logic makes it unlikely they should be allowed to play 5 level on auctions like this is fine. But that does not turn pass into a forcing pass.

[temp3600]

Quote

You conviently left off the first opart of the sentence, the full passage reads....
"2NT showed a limit raise or better with four (plus) hearts. Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction (1) to set up a forcing pass"

You are being dishonest by suggesting that I "conveniently" didn't mention the first sentence. Your first reply already had that bit.
"The example would be...

1H-(2C)-2NT-(5C)

where 2NT was limit raise or better", I continued quoting from there.

***

Example [1] and the current auction are different, but you don't seem to understand that in the case we have here responder is as strong if not stronger and has a more defensive hand than a subset of responder hands from point (4) where the partnership would end up defending 5♣X. I explain. In example [1], after (5♣), if opener passes, responder with a balanced, defensively-oriented limit raise will double, and opener will leave it (unless he was making a slam try obviously). Here, responder has shown a balanced 11-12HCP hand, so is at least as strong or stronger than the possible balanced limit-raise from [1]. Also, he likely has 2 spades, which means a worse fit than in [1], and increased defensive prospects.
So, if an ordinary opener and a balanced limit-raise are comitting to 5♣X by application of point (4) in example [1], in the current situation, the partnership is even more willing to play 5♣X.

So, if the partnership agreed to play point (4), declarer, over 5♣, knowing his partner has a balanced, semi-misfitted 11-12 count, should double. If for some reason he didn't, responder should double.

[inquiry]

ok.. i will try one last time. Let's try using a definition. Can we agree on this very simple definition for a forcing pass (taken from bridgeworld glossery)

Quote

forcing pass - a pass that requests that partner take some action and not allow the opponents to secure the contract (undoubled) at their present bid.

Assuming we can agree on this definition, what does the pass over 5♣ show on the auction in this thread? Is it a request for for partner to take some action (bid or double)? By your own analysis, you stated...

temp3600 five post above this one said:

I think that the situation here is a little strange, in that it IS a forcing pass, according to the rule, but one of our choices - we bid on - has been made impossible by our previous bids.

So the pass is NOT asking responder to bid on. The best you can do to describe openers pass as "a mistake" (note, not a forcing pass, but rather a mistake) where you said...

temp3600 three post above this one said:

So yes, declarer should have doubled, made a mistake by passing, and after his pass, responder has to double

So what you are describing is not an forcing pass agreement, but a bridge logic issue where opening hand opposite a balanced non-fitting game invite hand will double them if they bid to some level (in this case five level). This is certainly a fair agreement, but it does not fall under the definition of a "forcing pass". Why, is there is no implication that responder is encouraged in the slightest to bid on. So whatever pass is, it is not a forcing pass. And if your agreement (implicit or explicit) is to always double them in this situation still would not turn the initial pass into a forcing pass. It could be, as you state, "a mistake" where opener should have doubled, or it could have been a warning (as I suggest) that opener does not have the minimum number of expected defensive tricks.

But there is a difference between a bridge logic that we will punish them for bidding over our game try/non-fit auctions and a forcing pass. Even if you agree that they can not play such bids undoubled, that does not turn the pass into a "forcing pass" which invites partner to double or bid. I think that is what I am trying to express here.

But I give up now, accept or reject this characterization, i am certain I have nothing else to add on this subject.

[whereagles]

Such a mess out of a simple thing.. just dbl them and that's it

[keylime]

This is a thought provoking hand for me at first, but I am with the crowd. Pass is so not forcing.

I do tho think someone better be smacking this around, probably the NT bidder since they are marked with some club length in this auction.

[mikestar]

This is a no-brainer for me. Opener has declined a game invitation--we were stopping in a partial, we can be fairly certain that anything we might bid at the 5 level goes down. We certainly can't be in the position where our 5 level bid is odds on to be a make or a good save. Since there is no possibility of bidding on, it can't be a forcing pass.

The only correct meaning for opener's pass is "I have poor defense and 5♣ may make." In light of that info, responder's pass means "I think they may make it, too." If opener thinks it odds on that 5♣ is going down, then double it.