[mikeh]

This isn't a forcing pass in any partnership in which we have ever discussed the topic.

If partner wants to involve us in a high-level fp (perhaps he could anticipate his LHO bidding 5♣ even if he didn't expect it from his RHO), he had at least one trivial way of doing so: cue bid 3♣.

Generally speaking, I don't use vulnerability to determine fp or not: I use the strength of the auction.

If we have committed to game, in the sense of constructive bidding, then all passes are fp at all levels...we sometimes double making games or 5 level saves that come home, but that's the price we pay.

If we have established a force but to a level below game, then fp applies only in auctions that have not yet reached our level of force. Once they bid beyond our level of force, then either partner may bid (to show extra offence) or double (to show extra values, not purely offensive in nature) or pass (to show that they hold nothing extra).

The 4♥ call 'forced' to game, but not in a constructive fashion..it was a preempt and the fact that we were red makes it a stronger offensive hand than the dreck that it may have been based on at reverse vulnerabilities, but certainly doesn't announce ownership of the hand.

[jukmoi]

FrancesHinden, on May 13 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

Fluffy, on May 12 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

effervesce is right IMO.


Phil: I don't play fit showing bids stablishing any force, is it standard?

I don't play fit jumps as setting up a forcing pass above the level of our fit. The fit jumper can double to show extras.

More interesting question:

1H 3C (weak) 4H P
P 5C P

Should this be forcing?
Should it be forcing against weak players and not against strong players?

I think this is forcing aplying the rule that "when we bid vulnerable game passes are forcing". Where as 1♥-(2♣)-4♥-pass; pass is exception to the rule since 4♥ was clearly pre-emptive.

[OleBerg]

gwnn, on May 12 2010, 03:05 PM, said:

nigel_k, on May 12 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

Arguably it would not be FP even if partner had bid 3♣.

I like to play FP then. Probably in a forum minority on this issue. Limit+ values and them on the 5 level is FP (even after a 2/1 in competition).

I play that too.

(I also play pass as forcing, when we are red vs white, have bid game, and no alternative route was available, like: 1♠ - (4♥) - 4♠)

[gszeszycki]

USing the logic that 4h is designed to get us to a contract with reasonable expectation of taking 10 tricks (and there was no X of 4h) (if 4h X we having another conversation) I think this is definitely a forcing pass situation no matter imps or MP. It is much more clear cut at IMPS where we make bids designed to keep us from geting slaughtered) at MP we merely trying to keep from getting a bottom (not as critical)

Unless LHO is insane (bidding a passable 2c with 11 clubs tricks) LHO is opting for a sac. We need to look at OUR hand and decide if they are going to be lucky and make 5c or not. Thus when 4h bidder passed 5c it is because they are SHORT in clubs and may be willing to bid on. An X does not mean they can suddenly set 5c so much as they have club losers and wish to warn you against competing unecessarily.

lets say 4h bidder holds QJx xxxxxx QJxx void a perfect hand to PASS 5c and let p decide with Kxx xxxxxx Kx xx X better to warn p against competing

there are undoutedly some grey areas but there are limits as to what we can accomplish with scientific bidding vs guesswork.

[Phil]

FrancesHinden, on May 13 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

Fluffy, on May 12 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

effervesce is right IMO.


Phil: I don't play fit showing bids stablishing any force, is it standard?

I don't play fit jumps as setting up a forcing pass above the level of our fit. The fit jumper can double to show extras.

I take it you don't play any vulnerability-based forcing passes then?

I don't either, but many do.

[jjbrr]

FP threads tilt me a lot for some reason. The cost of screwing it up is frequently very high and the reward for good agreements is pretty marginal as it is, since you're still guessing a lot of the time anyway.

[655321]

jjbrr, on May 14 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

FP threads tilt me a lot for some reason. The cost of screwing it up is frequently very high and the reward for good agreements is pretty marginal as it is, since you're still guessing a lot of the time anyway.

Yes!

[OleBerg]

Little Kid, on May 12 2010, 12:05 PM, said:

My partner said bidding a vulnerable game made it forcing pass. Am I correct in thinking that you need to show game-forcing values in order to establish a forcing pass auction?

Indeed you are correct (or rather; would be, facing a regular expert partner.)

On a somewhat funny note:

In the late 80's you could see sequences, in Denmark, like this:

Red vs Red

1♥ - (1♠) - 4♥ - (4♠)

Now both sides would be in a forcing situation.

[Bridge_Bain]

Most literature I have seen uses vulnerability as a deciding factor in Forcing Pass situation. [This is especially true in fit jumps]. If this is IMPs, and partner freely bid a vulnerable game, the pass should be forcing. Maybe sanity helps here. Who was partner trying to preempt red after (his/her) RHO did not insert a spade bid? Why make a cue bid raise unless interested in slam? The cue bid just gives the opponents other chances to exchange information. But clearly, 4H was bid to make. So, this hand meets the "Game Force Principle".

If it had been (us) white against red, this would not be a forcing pass, in my opinion. At MP, red-red, this should be treated like it was IMPs. -200 is a kiss of death and it is far easier to double 4H at MP then IMPs.

Personally, I don't believe there is a "standard" treatment for forcing pass situations. I do believe vulnerability should have some influence. Basically, Forcing Pass needs to be discussed in some depth with partner.