[gwnn]

Should pass be forcing by the pard of the 2NT opener? Is it a feasible treatment? et cetera?

[kfay]

What?

Definitely not.

[pclayton]

No.

A better question does 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N create a force.

[kfay]

pclayton, on Feb 4 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

No.

A better question does 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N create a force.

Better question:

Who comes in after 2NT here that didn't come in after 2♣?

But you're right it's probably a better question.

[gwnn]

can somebody explain a little why it's such a bad idea that it doesn't even deserve being explained?

[kfay]

I was playing in a sectional two weekends ago and opened 2NT, played there and went down 3 tricks since partner had a 0-count and I was constantly locked in hand. Nothing particularly bad about the opps' distribution, etc.

Obviously that's a bit disappointing but the result was mirrored at the other table. I also wasn't shocked by anything that happened.

If I'm forced by a 0-count pass by partner now I'm losing 2 IMPs on the hand at least, nevermind what happens at MPs.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Feb 4 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 4 2008, 12:53 PM, said:

can somebody explain a little why it's such a bad idea that it doesn't even deserve being explained?

you could have 20 opp 0, the opps could be cold for game or slam with half the deck + distribution, the 2N opener is well defined so a forcing pass is not necessary, etc.

That's the main disadvantage of a forcing pass. Before dismissing the idea, however, shouldn't one weigh this against the advantages? Personally, I don't think I have enough data to be able to judge - an overcall over a 2NT opening is hardly a common occurrence.

[pclayton]

kfay, on Feb 4 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 4 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

No.

A better question does 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N create a force.

Better question:

Who comes in after 2NT here that didn't come in after 2♣?

But you're right it's probably a better question.

They don't have to come in later:

2♣ (2x) - pass (showing values) - (pass) - 2N - (3x)

2♣ (p) 2♦ (2x) 2N (3x)

[Cascade]

We just play double for takeout.

Too often you want to find your fit. Unless you are playing against lunatics who want to offer you free large penalties I think you will get more use out of a takeout double than a penalty double.

[helene_t]

The question came up int the Ladderpuzzel (like MSC) of the Dutch BF magazine some years ago. The majority, but not all, of the experts voted for non-forcing.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Feb 4 2008, 10:29 AM, said:

2♣ (2x) - pass (showing values) - (pass) - 2N - (3x)

This auction is obviously totally different since the pass showed values, thus you are in a force.

Good point. Perhaps

2♣ (2x) dbl (bust) (p)
2N - (3x)

is a better example.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Feb 4 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Too often you want to find your fit. Unless you are playing against lunatics who want to offer you free large penalties I think you will get more use out of a takeout double than a penalty double.

If pass is forcing, then
2NT (3♦) X is takeout
2NT (3♦) P P X is penalty oriented.

I don't know that the idea is that weird. If opener is balanced, and responder can't double for takeout, most of the time they're not going to have much of a fit. So from that POV, sure, why not X?

On the other hand, when you open 2NT and your partner has a balanced nothing, you're usually very happy when the opps interfere. It's a lot easier to take 5 tricks than 8, and you get a free entry into the nothing (since he's on opening lead). Why ruin it?

My feeling is that in MPs you don't need to double because you're already getting a good board, and in IMPs the extra 50 or 100 isn't worth the ginormous swing when they do find some way to make it. But I don't think it's clear cut.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Feb 4 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

The advantages are small, are you going to use the X as penalty and a pass as like a takeout bid? Or are you going to use X as t/o without 4 of the other major and pass as t/o with 4 of the major?

It's true that the advantages of such an approach would be limited. It might be better to use the pass artificially to make up for the space taken away by the overcall.

For example

2NT (3D): pass = [Puppet] Stayman, double = transfer, 3H = transfer, etc
2NT (3H): pass = 5+ spades, double = takeout, 3S = as without the overcall, etc
2NT (3S): pass = 5+ hearts, double = takeout

This has probably moved some way from what the original poster had in mind, though.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Feb 5 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

Jlall, on Feb 4 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

The advantages are small, are you going to use the X as penalty and a pass as like a takeout bid? Or are you going to use X as t/o without 4 of the other major and pass as t/o with 4 of the major?

It's true that the advantages of such an approach would be limited. It might be better to use the pass artificially to make up for the space taken away by the overcall.

For example

2NT (3D): pass = [Puppet] Stayman, double = transfer, 3H = transfer, etc
2NT (3H): pass = 5+ spades, double = takeout, 3S = as without the overcall, etc
2NT (3S): pass = 5+ hearts, double = takeout

This has probably moved some way from what the original poster had in mind, though.

I don't like methods that force you to get too high when you don't want to be.

Over 15% of the time you will have 0-3 hcp opposite a limited 20-22 NT. I want to be able to stop out of game when I have these bad hands. This probably is even higher when the opponent has something that he wants to bid on.

My simulation leapt to 40% when I gave one of the opponents 10+ hcp - yes I realize some and perhaps many overcalls after a 2NT opening might be on (much) less than 10 hcp.

[awm]

It seems sort of strange to me that:

2NT-(bid)-Pass would be non-forcing whereas...

(1NT)-X-(bid)-Pass is forcing.

In the first case, opener has shown half the deck in his own hand. The opening side will virtually always have majority of the strength. Opponents probably have something for their bid (at least some shape) but in principle the opening side could still have the points for slam!

In the second case, doubler has shown only something like 15-plus. Opener has shown something like 15-17 (assuming strong notrump). Neither side is all that likely to have the points even for game (much less slam), and either side could have the majority of the strength.

Yet it seems like a lot of folks regard it as "obvious" that the first auction is NF and almost as "obvious" that the second auction is forcing? Seems weird to me.

Anyways, I play all such auctions as NF under the reasoning that "there are no forcing auctions when someone on our side could still have a zero-count." However, use of such a rule puts me in a definite minority (there are many auctions such as the second one above, where one partner could easily have a zero-count and yet the majority plays forcing pass).

[han]

Few play a double of a strong notrump as penalty and even those that do might not play the auction you refer to as forcing.