[kenrexford]

A debate on two related situations.

Issue #1:

All White. MP.

1♦-1♥-X-2♦*-
P-3♥

*2♦ showed a "real" 2♥ raise. 2♥ would have been nuisance.

Question: Should 3♥ show game interest here or should 3♥ be "1-2-3 Stop?" Obviously, it should be discussed. But, what would you guess? What would you suggest?

-----------------------------------------------------

Issue #2:

All White. MP.

1♣-X-1♠-2♣*
X**-2♥-2♠-?

*2♣ systemically showed a "good" 2♥ call.
**X was "support."

Question: Is this a forcing sequence (must double 2♠ or compete to 3♥+)? If so, which is stronger -- 3♥ directly or 3♥ after passing? (If not, the second part is obviously irrelevant.) Again, this should obviously be discussed. But, what GP guess? What suggestion?

[rogerclee]

1) Obviously either is playable, and I think "stop" is better.
2) Forcing pass at the 2-level is the darndest (edit for language ) thing I have ever heard, and I have read foo's posts.

[gwnn]

Jlall, on Mar 29 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

1) I have had this misunderstanding with my dad, I 100 % think it should be 1-2-3 stop.

what if our suit is spades?

[effervesce]

rogerclee, on Mar 29 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

1) Obviously either is playable, and I think "stop" is better.
2) Forcing pass at the 2-level is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I have read foo's posts.

Eh? What about forcing pass at the zero level? Or Weak 1NT - X (pen) - pass (forcing) at the one level?

[kgr]

Jlall, on Mar 29 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

1) I have had this misunderstanding with my dad, I 100 % think it should be 1-2-3 stop..

1♦-1♥-p-2♦
p-3♥
Surprised by this. I would think it shows 5/6 card ♥ and too good to bid a weak 2♥ initially.
With what kind of hand would you bid 3♥ here?

[dake50]

1. 1-2-3 stop is too general a description: "I would bid 3H over 2S with this hand" is about right. Have strong bids otherwise, eg. new then back to 3H invites.
2. Pass is strong enough to give partner a chance to penalty bonanza. This must be stronger, in DT at least. Something else if no bonanza consideration.

[kenrexford]

As to the first, would ♠Kx ♦AKQ ♣xx ♥Jxxxxx qualify? (Stop -- I also thought this should be a "stop" sequence.)

As to the second -- why not have a forcing pass at the two-level? If the cue is a strong cue, then when would you want to defend 2♠ undoubled when all white? Having this forcing would make X penalty, 3♥ competitive, pass either optional (will pass double) or mild GF (will convert double).

[rogerclee]

effervesce, on Mar 29 2008, 04:24 AM, said:

Eh? What about forcing pass at the zero level? Or Weak 1NT - X (pen) - pass (forcing) at the one level?

In this case, I have limited my hand already, and it is also limited to something far weaker than anything like a redouble would establish. I wasn't arguing that it was impossible to have forcing passes at this level, just that it would be silly to play that here.

Partners knows it is w/w MPs and that we have a reasonable hand. I don't see why we need a systemically forcing pass here when partner will usually do the right thing anyway.

"dumbest thing I have ever heard" was definitely too much, so I apologize about that.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Mar 29 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

Partners knows it is w/w MPs and that we have a reasonable hand. I don't see why we need a systemically forcing pass here when partner will usually do the right thing anyway.

Um.

If "partner will do the right thing anyway," and if passing is NEVER the right thing w/w MP, then the "forcing pass" arises by operation of logic. If the "forcing pass" arises by logic, then the value to knowing this is not in being safe to pass but in being able to better define a pass as inferentially either stronger than 3♥ directly (might accept a game try?) or able to cooperate (but not independently act) in a penalty double decision.

If the inference is not that the sequence is forcing (to 3♥ or 2♠X), then that nuance is not possible. You end up playing 2♠ undoubled more often, or 3♥ down one too often, or 3♥+1 too often, IMO.

The point is not to write this down in a booklet of system notes and call it an agreement. The point is to determine whether forcing pass principles should apply in this situation, arising from GP, and that way assess the inferences of alternative actions accurately. If the GP, in your opinion, does not suggest F.P. principles, fine. But, it seems to me fairly reasonable to "define" auctions like this such that a 2♥ raise after a cue-flag is forcing IF the opponents intervene, more applied logic than definition. (With a hand that cannot commit to this FP in this sequence, Advancer could bid 2♥ rather than 2♣. Whereas this was not discussed, it seems that a logical way to distinguish the border between 2♣ and 2♥ is that you bid 2♣ if a raise would establish a FP but bid 2♥ if you do not want to commit to that FP.)

Does that make sense?