[Fluffy]

♠102
♥K72
♦AKJ5
♣AQ63

♠5
♥AJ854
♦874
♣J982


Matchpoints, N/S vulnerable

W - N - E - S
2♠-X-3♠-4♥
ps-ps-4♠-ps
ps-5♥-all pass


South though pass was not foricing, but north disagreed.

5♥ was not a great contract, but my partner brought it home (I think I wouldn't). After los ♠ lead East playing K and Ace, south ruffed, played a trump LHO playing ♥9.

Partner decided that the intermediate/advanced opponent would never play ♥9 from ♥9x, but maybe the 10 from 109, restricted choice said that Q9 was more likelly than 109, and he also decided that there was too much work to be done in the minors to surmount a 4-1 break (I don't fully agree but won't argue with success). The Ace payed off and ♥Q dropped behind.

Now he tried a club to the queen wich held. Now the cute pay comes, he needs to play one of the minors for no loser. And assuming LHO has ♣K, he can be either 6232 or 6223. If 6223 you must play for a doubleon ♣K, but if 6223 you must try and pin ♣10x. There weren't enough entris to try diaond finese in time. So he just played ♦AK+♦.

Note that this play loses nothing, if there is a club loser because LHO has ♣K10x, the ♦Q if onside is coming down in 2 rounds.

In practice diamonds were 3-3 and ♣K came in 2 rounds making +650 for 97% MPs.

[helene_t]

We bid game to make and they sac. It's forcing.

[JLOL]

Why would north not double?

[kfay]

Pass is forcing, which means both N and S should have doubled 4♠, imo.

[G_R__E_G]

Once again I had delusions of seeing an anonymous poll.

[Phil]

South's pass is non-forcing. It is not so clear to me who is bidding to make what.

North has a clear double of 4♠.

Quote

  Once again I had delusions of seeing an anonymous poll.

All polls are anonymous. Unanimous? That's a different matter

[G_R__E_G]

Phil, on Apr 20 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

South's pass is non-forcing. It is not so clear to me who is bidding to make what.

North has a clear double of 4♠.

Quote

   Once again I had delusions of seeing an anonymous poll.

All polls are anonymous. Unanimous? That's a different matter

Too funny. That'll teach me for posting before my second cup of coffee.

[Fluffy]

JLOL, on Apr 20 2009, 02:34 PM, said:

Why would north not double?

Because after picturing partner with singleton spade and hence 5 hearts (he would double with 1444), Every hand I could think of was closer to 12 tricks than 10

[joker_gib]

helene_t, on Apr 20 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

We bid game to make and they sac. It's forcing.

This + we are vul so for us this is forcing....

[dicklont]

Not forcing imo.
You can't expect South to double or bid 5 when he has streched to bid game and holds no defense.

[OleBerg]

Forcing with my agreements. (When we are red vs white and bid a game, that could not have been reached by a stronger route, pass is forcing.)

Wouldn't be forcing at any other vulnerabilety.

[gnasher]

I think this is forcing regardless of the vulnerability, because of the "sound of the auction": the opponents stopped in 3♠, then we bid game, then they bid 4♠. On the face of it, they aren't expecting to make 4♠, and we didn't expect them to make 4♠ either.

[jdonn]

It is forcing regardless of the vulnerability specifically because the opponents tried to stop in 3 before bidding 4. That overrides anything else.

[kfay]

jdonn, on Apr 21 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

It is forcing regardless of the vulnerability specifically because the opponents tried to stop in 3 before bidding 4. That overrides anything else.

obv

[OleBerg]

kfay, on Apr 21 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 21 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

It is forcing regardless of the vulnerability specifically because the opponents tried to stop in 3 before bidding 4. That overrides anything else.

obv

So everytime East has a very distributional hand that wants to get doubled in 4♠, he simply bids 3♠ first?

Or put another way: When up against competent opposition, I'd expect the 4♠ bidder to know what he is doing.

[jdonn]

OleBerg, on Apr 21 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

kfay, on Apr 21 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 21 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

It is forcing regardless of the vulnerability specifically because the opponents tried to stop in 3 before bidding 4. That overrides anything else.

obv

So everytime East has a very distributional hand that wants to get doubled in 4♠, he simply bids 3♠ first?

Or every time he wants to play 3♠ when cold for game. We are not required to bid over it, and often don't.

On the other hand, if he is so wildly distributional that he is sure we will act over 3♠ and is confident of making 4♠, then we probably have distribution too and want to save instead of passing it out.

Quote

Or put another way: When up against competent opposition, I'd expect the 4♠ bidder to know what he is doing.

Even if we assume he is right to bid 4♠ that doesn't mean pass shouldn't be forcing. His most likely reason to bid 4♠ is he is worried one side or the other is making. If them then we probably want to save. If us then we probably want to double or bid on to make.

The logic here is overwhelming. Good players are not in the habit of missing game or failing to bid it when the decision is close, but RHO tried to stop in a partsocre. So when he bids game later, pass is forcing. He is usually not messing with us so you can't spend all your time worrying about it, and even if he is then we probably don't want to pass it out.

[JLOL]

Surely if we were white/red even jdonn would not consider pass forcing?

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Apr 21 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Apr 21 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

kfay, on Apr 21 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 21 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

It is forcing regardless of the vulnerability specifically because the opponents tried to stop in 3 before bidding 4. That overrides anything else.

obv

So everytime East has a very distributional hand that wants to get doubled in 4♠, he simply bids 3♠ first?

Or every time he wants to play 3♠ when cold for game. We are not required to bid over it, and often don't.

On the other hand, if he is so wildly distributional that he is sure we will act over 3♠ and is confident of making 4♠, then we probably have distribution too and want to save instead of passing it out.

If you have a distributional hand, you should be able to see it for yourself, and not have to rely on the opponents to tell you.

Quote

Quote

Or put another way: When up against competent opposition, I'd expect the 4♠ bidder to know what he is doing.

Even if we assume he is right to bid 4♠ that doesn't mean pass shouldn't be forcing. His most likely reason to bid 4♠ is he is worried one side or the other is making. If them then we probably want to save. If us then we probably want to double or bid on to make.

The logic here is overwhelming. Good players are not in the habit of missing game or failing to bid it when the decision is close, but RHO tried to stop in a partsocre. So when he bids game later, pass is forcing. He is usually not messing with us so you can't spend all your time worrying about it, and even if he is then we probably don't want to pass it out.

For one thing; The "whiter" my opponents vulnerabilety becomes, the more likely he is to be messing with us. At IMPs that is. At Mp's stunts can be more freely pulled, even at aggregate.

My main point however is, that if a really competent player bids 3♠ - 4♠, it is rarely right to double for penalties, and sometimes it is right to sell out.

I am not saying that forcing might not be a better agreement, only that it is not obvious.

Maybe an even better agreement would be:

"Forcing against players up to a certain level of competence, non-forcing against players over that level of competence."

[jdonn]

My point is you can't just be playing your opponents to be thinking on level 3 or whatever all the time. If they bid 3♠ then 4♠, you assume they wanted to stop in 3, partly because people usually are straightforward, and partly because hands wild enough to want to mess around are not common. You may have to accept that sometimes they gotcha.

This happens in poker all the time. Someone tries to completely outthink their opponent and gives him credit for a scheme he never dreamed up, when most of the time he is just doing the obvious thing. I prefer to stick to the obvious logic. My opponent didn't think he was making game, but now he is in game, so I won't let him play there undoubled.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Apr 21 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

...and partly because hands wild enough to want to mess around are not common. You may have to accept that sometimes they gotcha.

It is not common, for me, to see my opponents bid 3♠-4♠. If it was, I would play the pass as forcing.

Quote

This happens in poker all the time.

Well, in poker you try to get up against as weak opposition as possible, in bridge you try to get up against as strong opposition as possible.

If you're up against Gus Hansen, you better take into consideration, that he might be on level three.