BBO Discussion Forums: Your Lead? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Your Lead?

#21 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2009-July-07, 16:16

Jlall, on Jul 6 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

@gnasher: I could not feel more strongly that you are wrong. When the opps jump to slam vulnerable against non vulnerable how can you be in a forcing pass just because you have shown 12 HCP

I didn't do a very good job of arguing my case before, so here's another attempt.

Disregarding the vulnerability for a moment, this is what's happened:
- We've both bid.
- We bid to 6♠, in an auction where we didn't deny the values for a slam.
- Ostensibly RHO wanted to play only in 6♥. He signed off in 6♥, and only bid 7♥ after we had bid 6♠.

Qualitatively, this auction is no different from:
  (1♠) dbl (3♠) 4♥
  (pass) pass (4♠)
where we would all play pass as forcing (wouldn't we?), because the auction says that they're sacrificing. Both opponents wanted to play in 3♠, but they bid 4♠ only after we bid 4♥. We'd occasionally pay off if responder was sandbagging, had correctly reevaluated, or just got lucky, but the principle that this type of sequence creates a forcing pass is both sound and well-established.

In the original auction, the same applies: 7♥ may be cold, but if we take the auction at face value responder doesn't think so. The auction certainly doesn't guarantee that 6♥ or 7♥ was bid to make. What would responder do with - K109xx J10xxxxx x? If it were any other vulnerability, it would be clear to play pass as forcing.

In both of these auctions, there's a case for not playing a forcing pass at this particular vulnerability, but I prefer not to vary my forcing pass agreements according to vulnerability. There's also a case for not playing a forcing pass at this particular combination of vulnerability and level, or when it's "obvious" that pass shouldn't be forcing, but that's too hard for me. I like my forcing-pass rules to be simple and unambiguous.

What's the downside of playing pass as forcing? Over 7♥ advancer has two actions available, pass and double, and he has two possible hand-types: a hand that bid 6♠ to make, and a hand that bid it as a sacrifice. If pass is non-forcing, double shows the good hand and pass shows the weak one. If pass is forcing, double shows the weak hand and pass shows the good hand. Given that defending 7♥ undoubled is unlikely to be correct, there doesn't seem to be much to choose between the two.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users