[kenberg]

Recently a couple of doubling situations arose that caused me stress. Both ended happily, but it was a little bit touch and go. Hand 1 is on an earlier thread.

Hand 2

Scoring: IMP

1♦ P 1♥ X
XX 3♠ 4♥
4♠ P P ?

---

What are my obligations here? My 4♥ was a (reasonable?) stretch and I wish to pass. Like a lot of people I have some general concept of when partner's pass is forcing but there is this fuzzy area of uncertainty. So:
Am I allowed to pass?
Would you pass if allowed?

[dicklont]

A. yes
I think you are allowed to pass, a double cannot be expected form your defenseless hand.
B. Yes
They are probably making 4♠.
5♦ looks like a good save with green/red.
But this is the other way round.
I pass and hope for 4 tricks.

[maggieb]

Agree with 4♥ (strongly), now I pass.

[ONEferBRID]

1♦ - P - 1♥ - X
XX- 3♠ -4♥- 4♠
P -   P -  ?

[helene_t]

I was wondering if the pass should be forcing. I think there is a case for r/w game bids (other than preempts) setting up a FP since we don't save at these colors. Then again, there is a case for the FP rules being the same regardless of colors.

[kenberg]

As Helene suggests, she was my partner. Presumably any partner holding three hearts, some diamonds, and an opening hand would have bid as she did, so the issues are whether the pass is forcing. As it happens, rho thought a bit before his 3S bid so by the time he did it I had already decided I would bid 4H over an expected 2S. It's a little different there, since over 2S I obviously could have bid 3H or (with a different hand) 3S.

Over 3S I think I prefer that 4H not set up a forcing pass, even red against white. Had rho bid only 2S then I am more inclined to think 4H sets up a forcing pass at these colors.

But the post is truly a confession of uncertainty.

As it turned out, there are nine tricks in hearts and nine tricks in spades. But it was far from clear we were beating 4S and 5H was not under consideration.

[andy_h]

Assuming XX = support, then I agree with 4♥ and an easy pass now. We (our partnership) haven't shown the majority of the strength so this is definitely not a forcing pass auction.

[Phil]

andy_h, on Nov 16 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

Assuming XX = support, then I agree with 4♥ and an easy pass now. We (our partnership) haven't shown the majority of the strength so this is definitely not a forcing pass auction.

Agree.

Weinstein / Garner play 3N over 3♠ as "ownership" of the deal. This would be very useful here, since I could be bidding 4♥ as an inducement for them to save. Partner will hardly ever bid 5♥ after showing a support double.

At the very least, i think some sort of 4m call would have the same meaning. Pard should realize that I have some hearts and a reason to bid 4♥.

[aguahombre]

Yep, as Ken and Phil say, 3S made 4H a pressure bid. So 4H should not have created a FP. Using 3NT as stronger than 4H, rather than weaker, is a good thing because of the extra room it leaves. Regardless of whether 3NT is part of your discussed agreements, your expert partner will take a wild guess that it is not to play.

[pooltuna]

kenberg, on Nov 16 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

Recently a couple of doubling situations arose that caused me stress. Both ended happily, but it was a little bit touch and go. Hand 1 is on an earlier thread.

Hand 2

Scoring: IMP

1♦ P 1♥ X
XX 3♠ 4♥
4♠ P P ?

---

What are my obligations here? My 4♥ was a (reasonable?) stretch and I wish to pass. Like a lot of people I have some general concept of when partner's pass is forcing but there is this fuzzy area of uncertainty. So:
Am I allowed to pass?
Would you pass if allowed?

if XX was support I would pass if it shows xtras I think you are obligated to X

[whereagles]

Most hands that I can come up with offer no play for 5♥, so I'm gonna pass. There's no guarantee we can set them. Give pard something normal like

xxx
Axx
KJxx
Axx

and opps a singleton heart/doubleton diamond and they make 4S no sweat. It does rate to go down more often than not, so to double or not is close.

[kenberg]

If I can extend this a little. Most seem to agree that I can (and also should) pass. Suppose, for discussioon, that rho bids only 2S, not 3S. I was still, right or wrong, going to bid 4H. As 8 counts go, it's a pretty good one. Of course if lho then bids 4S, followed by pass pass, I still would like to pass. After my not forced bid of 4H, vul, partner might be expecting me to do something.

If you think 4H over 2S is crazy then my predicament will seem self generated. But still:

1D-(pass)-1H-(X)
XX-(2S)-4H-(4S)
pass-(pass)-?

XX is support, sorry for not mentioning it earlier.

Still not a forcing pass situation?


It seems to me that exactly what is and what is not a forcing pass is often murky.

[Jlall]

Sure you can pass. You have zero tricks and partner hasn't promised much in the way of tricks either. Common sense is fine in situations like this.

4H is fine also, you took a shot at game which could easily make opposite many normal "weak NT" type hands.

There is almost so much forcing pass confusion it would be better for people not to learn them.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Nov 16 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

Weinstein / Garner play 3N over 3♠ as "ownership" of the deal. This would be very useful here, since I could be bidding 4♥ as an inducement for them to save.

Surely that applies only if you're known to have an eight-card major-suit fit? In this sequence you could just want to play in 3NT.

[kenberg]

Thinking aloud to generalize a little.

Opener has an unknown hand but it will often be 12-14 balanced, no reason to think either 5H or 4SX is a good contract. Responder has bid game but it could well be that the bid is on shape, hope and a prayer. No reason from his hand to think either 4SX or 5H is a good contract. So no forcing pass in effect here. Of course responder may have the goods and either double or bid on. This would seem to apply the other side up as well: If over 4H there are two passes and then 4S, a pass is not forcing.

A corollary would be that if opener has, say, 1-3-6-3 shape and thinks 5H over the 4S is reasonable (if responder thinks 4H is reasonable opposite a flat 13 then this shape and a little extra might well make 5H right) then opener has to bid it because responder will not treat a pass as forcing.

I often get these things reasonably right on common sense grounds but I am thinking some explicit discussion could be useful. Many years ago Kantar had a series of articles in the ACBL mag about exactly when a pass is forcing. It made for exhausting reading and I can't say I remember his conclusions. I don't suppose it is possible to find old (very old I think) articles?

[Jlall]

kenberg, on Nov 18 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

A corollary would be that if opener has, say, 1-3-6-3 shape and thinks 5H over the 4S  is reasonable (if responder thinks 4H is reasonable opposite a flat 13 then this shape and a little extra might well make 5H right) then opener has to bid it because responder will not treat a pass as forcing.

Yes this is perfect, you knew the answer, it's just hard to believe it's that simple

Admittedly there are some situations which are debatable which could be played either way, and having a firm agreement in place is good. My agreement with all of my pards is if it's not obvious that it should be a forcing pass, it's not. Pretty simple. I also had an agreement once that white/red there is no forcing pass (but this is a bad agreement to have vs bad opps).

But 99 % of these forcing pass situations that people discuss are just clearly not forcing passes, and they're getting to muddled up in them to see the logic that you so aptly described in your post.

Re Kantar- Obv he's a great player but I disagree with a ton of his FP rules, and I think at times they violate "common sense." and are possibly outdated. But it can never hurt to have good firm rules with your partners about forcing passes, especially if you're both comfortable with them (as you might tell by now, I'm not comfortable with a lot of them).

Kokish, another great player and theoritician also advocates more FPs than most. So obviously you can choose to ignore me and listen to those guys I would say in recent times the number of auctions people play as forcing has gone down, which makes sense as the level of competitive bidding has gone up (now at top levels it's very common to see both sides bidding on every hand, frequently both of them bidding game! No one ever knows whos hand it is).

[kenberg]

"Not FP unless it is clear that it is" actually will handle most cases. Helene and I were playing that specific hand I posted, and we can discuss a little about pinning down some examples, but for a default I prefer "isn't unless clearly is" to "is unless clearly isn't". I also much prefer keeping rule lists to a reasonable length. Two. Or maybe three.