[louisg]

Scoring: IMP

---

1♦-(1♠)-2♥-(5♠)-?

Assume that 2♥ is a one-round force, but doesn't promise a rebid if opener indicates a minimum (which I believe is the mainstream approach in most places).

Would your partnership treat opener's pass here as forcing? Why or why not? What call do you make?

[jdonn]

Opener's pass is forcing because the opponents are obviously sacrificing.

This hand is a textbook pass to me. Pass would tend to be a heart fit and good offense, but not willing to commit to the 6 level. Even a hand like 2344 would usually just double.

[rogerclee]

What is the vul? If we are red vs white I could see bidding 6H vs a lot of people, in general people who were willing to jump to 5S like this are going to bid 6S when you bid 6H. Of course this is an exploitable way to play, as is any exploitive style, so it is all kind of a poker game in the end and would depend a lot on who the opps are.

Taking away the poker aspect of the hand I agree with jdonn, it's a pass, we cannot commit to slam but would like to invite it.

[kgr]

louisg, on Nov 10 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

1♦-(1♠)-2♥-(5♠)-?

Assume that 2♥ is a one-round force, but doesn't promise a rebid if opener indicates a minimum (which I believe is the mainstream approach in most places).

Would your partnership treat opener's pass here as forcing? Why or why not? What call do you make?

I play that 1st DBL after opps bid game is desire to bid further (independent of forcing pass or not). I DBL here to invite further bidding.
(I would pass with normal methods).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Is pass forcing: sure.

You dont let the opponents play on the 5 level
without a double after you said, that this is your
hand.

And you said this, your side opened the bidding
and made a 2/1 response.

Given your heart support, you should let partner
decide.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[louisg]

Quote

Opener's pass is forcing because the opponents are obviously sacrificing.

Would you apply the same reasoning to the auction 1♦-(1♥)-1♠-(5♥)? Note that in both cases, overcaller's hand is virtually unlimited. Advancer may _think_ he is sacrificing, but....

Quote

You dont let the opponents play on the 5 level
without a double after you said, that this is your
hand.

And you said this, your side opened the bidding
and made a 2/1 response.

This doesn't mean that it is our hand. Had advancer bid 3S I don't think many would treat opener's pass as forcing, and it would be debatable over 4S (in this partnership for example, pass would not be forcing here either).

[P_Marlowe]

louisg, on Nov 11 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

<snip>

Quote

You dont let the opponents play on the 5 level
without a double after you said, that this is your
hand.

And you said this, your side opened the bidding
and made a 2/1 response.

This doesn't mean that it is our hand. Had advancer bid 3S I don't think many would treat opener's pass as forcing, and it would be debatable over 4S (in this partnership for example, pass would not be forcing here either).

Ok.

Can we agree, that our side claimed to be in possesion of more
than half of the deck?
That our side is more or less certain to have at least 21HCP?
Please dont come up with light openings facing a streched 2/1
response, this is possible, but the likelihood is near zero.
It is way more likely that the either or both players are faced with
the issue to decide, if one should look for 6, go for blood or not..
Of course you sometimes pay of, but ***** happens.

And I agree, that it would be a minority view, to play a pass after
a 3S intervention as forcing, I do, but I know it is a extreme minority
view.
Similiar it is also a minority view to play pass after 4S as forcing,
although the minority grew, and it may well be, that this is the
majority.

BUT THIS HAS NOTHING, ABSOLUT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POSED
PROBLEM.

Sorry for using caps, but if you seriously want to discuss a problem stay
on topic.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

louisg, on Nov 11 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

Quote

Opener's pass is forcing because the opponents are obviously sacrificing.

Would you apply the same reasoning to the auction 1♦-(1♥)-1♠-(5♥)? Note that in both cases, overcaller's hand is virtually unlimited. Advancer may _think_ he is sacrificing, but....

Yes, all you have to go on is what advancer thinks. Even if they are making, that probably means you should be bidding. Passing them out at 5 can't be good strategy.

[louisg]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 11 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

BUT THIS HAS NOTHING, ABSOLUT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POSED
PROBLEM.

Sorry for using caps, but if you seriously want to discuss a problem stay
on topic.

With kind regards
Marlowe

In what way did I go off topic? You claimed that the auction announced ownership of the deal; I did nothing more than present evidence to the contrary.

[jdonn]

louisg, on Nov 11 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 11 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

BUT THIS HAS NOTHING, ABSOLUT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POSED
PROBLEM.

Sorry for using caps, but if you seriously want to discuss a problem stay
on topic.

With kind regards
Marlowe

In what way did I go off topic? You claimed that the auction announced ownership of the deal; I did nothing more than present evidence to the contrary.

Yeah wtf marlowe you were out of line there.