[jtfanclub]

Sorry, just trying to figure out these low level forcing pass bids.

So, the auction goes:

1♠ X XX 2♣
-P- P X -P-
2♠

How far is your partner forced now? Can he pass? Would it matter if the opponent's suit was hearts instead?


Assume an expert but unfamiliar partner.

[Free]

It's stronger than an immediate 2♠, but I have no idea about how forcing this is...

[ArtK78]

Forcing for 1 round. The redoubler has promised another call.

[MarkDean]

I agree that it is stronger than an immediate 2♠ over 2♣, so I vote F1.

With many partners I play that xx by an unpassed hand forces to 2NT because it really simplifies things, and I always mean it when I xx.

[helene_t]

If rdbl showed 9+ and an immediate 2♠ would be something like 11-13 we are close to a GF but not quite. I think 2NT from responder is now forcing but not GF.

[FrancesHinden]

Really this is one of things that you need to discuss with your partner.

I don't play this as forcing.

You could argue that the redoubler showed a decent 9+, and that opener has shown a non-minimum hand (passing over 2C rather than bidding 2S at once), and thus 2S will very rarely be passed, but that's not quite the same thing.

Quote

With many partners I play that xx by an unpassed hand forces to 2NT because it really simplifies things, and I always mean it when I xx.

That's a perfectly good agreement.
My agreement is that xx only forces as far as two of opener's suit if opener shows values, and if opener bids to show weakness, that is non-forcing.

So:

1S x xx 2C
P

is forcing

1S x xx 3C
P

is non-forcing

1S x xx 2C
2H

is non-forcing

1S x xx 2C
P P x P
2H

is forcing

1S x xx 2C
P P x P
2S

is non-forcing

Quote

Forcing for 1 round. The redoubler has promised another call.

Even if you play that the redoubler promises another call (which is not necessarily obvious), he has already made one by doubling 2C.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on May 29 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

Really this is one of things that you need to discuss with your partner.

I don't play this as forcing.

You could argue that the redoubler showed a decent 9+, and that opener has shown a non-minimum hand (passing over 2C rather than bidding 2S at once), and thus 2S will very rarely be passed, but that's not quite the same thing.

Quote

With many partners I play that xx by an unpassed hand forces to 2NT because it really simplifies things, and I always mean it when I xx.

That's a perfectly good agreement.
My agreement is that xx only forces as far as two of opener's suit if opener shows values, and if opener bids to show weakness, that is non-forcing.

So:

1S x xx 2C
P

is forcing

1S x xx 3C
P

is non-forcing

1S x xx 2C
2H

is non-forcing

1S x xx 2C
P P x P
2H

is forcing

1S x xx 2C
P P x P
2S

is non-forcing

Quote

Forcing for 1 round. The redoubler has promised another call.

Even if you play that the redoubler promises another call (which is not necessarily obvious), he has already made one by doubling 2C.

Frances typed my thoughts almost verbatim.

[NickRW]

I also echo Frances's thoughts - I think that also this should be discussed, but this sort of agreement is probably the default in Acol land where the general style is limit bids.

However, I am not sure people from other parts of the world would also say the same... So is maybe not the default online...?

Nick

[jdonn]

The 2♠ bid is forcing one round, 2♠ directly over 2♣ would be non forcing. Over the actual 2♠, opener could next pass a 2NT or 3♠ bid but a new suit or cuebid by the redoubler would be game forcing.

I'm very surprised this can generate so much discussion, unless someone has non standard agreements they are sharing.

Edit: And since I now see there were poll options, it certainly doesn't set trumps, it just shows 6+ spades.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on May 29 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

I'm very surprised this can generate so much discussion, unless someone has non standard agreements they are sharing.

I don't think there are standard agreements to share.

I've seen the auction 1S x xx 2C all pass from a good pair (although that I would definitely think is non-standard).

Certainly I think there is insufficient agreement in the world that I alert the forcing passes.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on May 29 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 29 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

I'm very surprised this can generate so much discussion, unless someone has non standard agreements they are sharing.

I don't think there are standard agreements to share.

I've seen the auction 1S x xx 2C all pass from a good pair (although that I would definitely think is non-standard).

Certainly I think there is insufficient agreement in the world that I alert the forcing passes.

It would never occur to me to alert, nor would it occur to me that when a pair someone thinks is good does something obviously terrible (unless the redouble was just a psych anyway) that it changes what standard is.

I don't question your motives at all, which are good, but the sort of alert you mention is the kind I find really annoying that slows down the game, and tricks me into asking a question and thus getting the opponents on the same page because I think the bid/pass had some actually unusual meaning.

[Vilgan]

Nm, read something the wrong way.

But ya, 1♠ x xx 2♣ p, is absolutely forcing unless there is a special (strange?) agreement of some sort.

Agree with Josh on hearing an alert for something that is so obviously standard.

[NickRW]

I don't think there is any disagreement over whether opener's pass is forcing, nor does there appear to be any disagreement over whether the 2S bid is stronger than had it been made originally - but that wasn't the original question.

Nick

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on May 29 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

I don't question your motives at all, which are good, but the sort of alert you mention is the kind I find really annoying that slows down the game, and tricks me into asking a question and thus getting the opponents on the same page because I think the bid/pass had some actually unusual meaning.

OK. I will continue to alert against you anyway, because I play that the pass may include a penalty double (we play double as take-out, which is definitely non-standard).

To be honest, even if I were playing more normal methods, this alert probably falls into my (not officially regulated) category of alerts I do against some people but not others. The English alert regs tell me to alert the pass if it could contain "unexpected" values, and clearly "unexpected" depends on the opposition... I do a lot more alerts of what I consider "standard expert" agreements against weak players than against strong players who won't be surprised.

Also I alert forcing passes when partner thinks for ages before passing, just to avoid at least some of the "you only bid because you knew partner had values for his thought"

[gnasher]

jdonn, on May 29 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

the sort of alert you mention is the kind I find really annoying that ... tricks me into asking a question and thus getting the opponents on the same page because I think the bid/pass had some actually unusual meaning.

That presupposes that the opponents are either unethical or ignorant of a basic requirement of the Laws. If the answer to your question tells an opponent something he didn't already know, an honest opponent will be disadvantaged, because his actions are constrained whereas otherwise they wouldn't have been.