[cherdano]

Matt, I misunderstood all your posts above because I thought sound raise = constructive raise.

[han]

Ah, I also thought of sound raise as something like 1S-2S constructive, or 1S - (Dbl) - 2H = sound raise (as many play).

Now I think that it is far from universal to play opener + invitation or better = forcing pass, but that makes a lot more sense.

[pclayton]

Echognome, on Sep 3 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

pclayton said:

Because we aren't in a GF situation.

I play a few forcing passes as non game forcing. For example: 1NT - (Dbl) - ReDbl I play as "forcing to fit", which is not necessarily GF. I think it's absolutely clear that if we are in a game forcing auction, then pass is forcing. What's not so clear is if we are not in a game forcing auction, whether there are situations where pass should be forcing. I define my rules above (in regards to this auction). However, I'm willing to listen to others if they think they are too loose.

This is a different type of forcing pass. There are no pass / pull connotations. Similar auctions develop when we double a weak NT or we redouble a TOx.

Another FP is when the partnership uses Bergen and an intervening bid occurs between the Bergen raise and 3 of the major.

[pclayton]

Echognome, on Sep 3 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 06:00 AM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 3 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

I usually play opener + sound raise = forcing pass, but overcall + sound raise = not forcing pass.  Not sure what's right or best.

Where did you get a sound raise??

If responder wants to show a sound raise, he shouldn't go through a trial bid, he should bid 2NT. Now he's just trying for a distributional game => NO sound raise => NO forcing pass.

But this is exactly my point. The question is what is 3♣ to you? Is it a "trial" in that it is invitational only? Or is it just a forcing bid that is invitational or better? To me it means the latter and that is why I believe it is equivalent to a sound raise, for what is a sound raise other than an invitational or better hand?

I think we play it as a game try. Harvey and I play 3♣ as a slam try, which would definitely create a FP.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Sep 3 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

I think we play it as a game try. Harvey and I play 3♣ as a slam try, which would definitely create a FP.

If 3♣ is a slam try (this seems a bit wasteful to me for such a low bid) then I wouldn't pass anyway, I would bid 5♥.

[whereagles]

Good hand for bidding 5 if pard has a singleton diamond. Pass now and sit pard's dbl or colaborate in a slam try.

If pass would be not forcing, I guess I'd dbl and hope for the best (e.g. 1 or 2 down).

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Sep 3 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 3 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

I think we play it as a game try. Harvey and I play 3♣ as a slam try, which would definitely create a FP.

If 3♣ is a slam try (this seems a bit wasteful to me for such a low bid) then I wouldn't pass anyway, I would bid 5♥.

Yeah; we decided early on that invites go through 2N. Good, bad or indifferent.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Sep 3 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

Matt, I misunderstood all your posts above because I thought sound raise = constructive raise.

That's probably because I wasn't making myself clear. But glad you identified the source (me).

How about 1M - (P) - 2N (Limit+ raise) - (5m)? Pass forcing or no?

I know that not all of these sequences are the same, but it begs the question of where to start drawing the line.

[pclayton]

Echognome, on Sep 3 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

How about 1M - (P) - 2N (Limit+ raise) - (5m)? Pass forcing or no?

I know that not all of these sequences are the same, but it begs the question of where to start drawing the line.

I don't think this auction is much different than the original sequence.

Maybe 1M - p - 2N - 6♦ - pass could be forcing because we aren't ever defending 6♦ undoubled. Its either cracked or we are in our slam.

Perhaps you could extend the same reasoning to a direct 5♦, I don't know.

[Free]

Echognome, on Sep 4 2007, 02:00 AM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 3 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

Matt, I misunderstood all your posts above because I thought sound raise = constructive raise.

That's probably because I wasn't making myself clear. But glad you identified the source (me).

How about 1M - (P) - 2N (Limit+ raise) - (5m)? Pass forcing or no?

I know that not all of these sequences are the same, but it begs the question of where to start drawing the line.

When unfavorable, any invite+ raise makes a forcing pass situation at the 5-level. So yes, I would consider pass as forcing in that auction.
1♣ - p - 1♠ - Dbl
2♠ - p - 2NT* - 5♦
...
This would also be a forcing pass situation for me, since the 2NT bidder hasn't limited his hand (may be looking for slam).

1♣ - p - 1♠ - Dbl
2♠ - p - 3♣ - 5♦
...
Here I don't consider pass as being forcing, since 3♣ is a distributional game try, where partner is limited (no slam interest).

[Echognome]

Free, on Sep 3 2007, 11:35 PM, said:

1♣ - p - 1♠ - Dbl
2♠ - p - 3♣ - 5♦
...
Here I don't consider pass as being forcing, since 3♣ is a distributional game try, where partner is limited (no slam interest).

This is exactly the crux of the issue. Ultimately, it is down to partnership agreement on what 3♣ shows. What options does partner have to force? How forcing are those calls? (NF, F1, FG?) Are there other options that limit his hand? (as your 2NT does)

[Free]

For me, only 2NT and splinters set up a forcing pass. But I agree, it's a matter of agreement...

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Sep 1 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

I double here because I have tricks. This hand is really good for both offense and defense.

Do you have tricks?

This is a pretty extreme auction, X and then game. I don't think he's kidding around. If he has something like:

x
Kxxxx
AKQxxxx
void

and his partner has

xxx
QTx
Jxx
xxxx

they're gonna make it. And we have one heart and one diamond loser- 5 spades makes.

I don't think it's going to be quite this extreme, but I really don't like Xing this, particularly in IMPs. So we get get 50 instead of 100 if partner passes...do I care? If partner really is 5-5 in the black, I'd like him to bid again.

All I know is, every time I X this, it's a bad result.

[ArtK78]

A long time ago, The Bridge World ran a series of articles called High Level Bridge or High Level Decisions (it was a long time ago). The author made the point that the winning decision in these high-level situations usually depended on the number of cards that you held in the opponent's suit. With 2 or more, you should usually double, and with one or less, you should pass (forcing).

However, that assumes that you are in a forcing pass situation. If partner's 3♣ bid was a game try, then you are not in a forcing pass situation. Clearly, your 2♠ bid was not forcing, and his 3♣ bid was not forcing to game. So, this is not a forcing pass situation.

Given this, I would pass over 5♦. I do not have 3 defensive tricks, and I don't have a real good idea what partner has. He has a better idea of what I have than I have of what he has. I do not want to indicate to him that I really have a strong preference for defending 5♦. If his hand indicates that we should bid more, fine. If not, he is free to double or pass.

[han]

For me 1M - 2NT (inv+) does not create a forcing pass. Similarly 1S - (2H) - 3H - (4H) is not a forcing pass situation.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Sep 4 2007, 08:10 AM, said:

x
Kxxxx
AKQxxxx
void

and his partner has

xxx
QTx
Jxx
xxxx

they're gonna make it.  And we have one heart and one diamond loser- 5 spades makes.

LOL at your example. Have you considered what a ridiculous way that would have partner bidding his hand, and RHO bidding his, and what an amazingly lucky dummy that would be for them right down to the well placed 10? Your opponent is w/r, despite what you think he IS kidding around.

[jdeegan]

The full hand was:

Scoring: IMP

1♣-P-1♠-Dbl
2♠-P-3♣-5♦
Dbl-P-P-P

---

I had the same forcing or non-forcing issues about the pass as many of the commentators. The South hand isn't very distributional, and it has a max of high cards. This suggested defense to me, so I doubled. Partner didn't pull, but she said she would have taken the push if I had passed - I guess she considered the pass forcing. I think it probably ought to be. Pass saying I would have bid the game; double saying I would have declined.

5♦ went for 300 when declarer misguessed the heart suit. 5♠ made at the other table. Double dummy it can be defeated by underleading the QJ109xx of diamonds twice.

[jdonn]

I'm not complaining about the result since I'm not unhappy getting 300 anyway. But why didn't partner bid a simple 4♠ instead of the purposeless 3♣, THEN we would have had our forcing pass available (regardless of what happens after that).

Your partner should not bid 5 even if you pass. She knows you have the jack of spades?

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Sep 6 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

I'm not complaining about the result since I'm not unhappy getting 300 anyway. But why didn't partner bid a simple 4♠ instead of the purposeless 3♣, THEN we would have had our forcing pass available (regardless of what happens after that).

Your partner should not bid 5 even if you pass. She knows you have the jack of spades?

I agree.
And if north jumps to 4♠, east does't know about opps double fit, and it will be much tougher (insane ) to make a save.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Sep 6 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 6 2007, 07:40 PM, said:

I'm not complaining about the result since I'm not unhappy getting 300 anyway. But why didn't partner bid a simple 4♠ instead of the purposeless 3♣, THEN we would have had our forcing pass available (regardless of what happens after that).

Your partner should not bid 5 even if you pass. She knows you have the jack of spades?

I agree.
And if north jumps to 4♠, east does't know about opps double fit, and it will be much tougher (insane ) to make a save.

I agree as well: making a game try as North was very weak.

BTW, on the FP issue, a useful rule, and not an idiosyncratic invention of mine, is that trial bids create a force only through the level to which the bid forced us absent competition. Thus 3♣, being merely a gametry, forced us to 3♠, but no higher. Accordingly, we are in a FP situation if rho had bid 3♦ or 3♥ but not once rho bid beyond 3♠.

This rule is both logical (avoiding lose-lose scenarios where we can make nothing and can't beat their contract) and easy to remember.