[Echognome]

mikeh, on Sep 6 2007, 11:40 AM, said:

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.

I like this rule. Just a couple quick follow up questions. Take 1♥ - (P) - 2♣ - (4/5♦); ?

Suppose 2♣ is forcing to game. Now maybe it's semantics, but forcing to which game? 3NT is game and 4♦ is above that.

What about the latter sequence? Is this no longer a FP?

[mikeh]

Your question is answered by the nature of the 2♣ bid: it was gf. Therefore, we are in a fp situation. The rule I described was with respect to bids that, while being a one-round force, are not gf... see the 3♣ (mis)bid in the example.