[peachy]

Just out of interest. What criteria do you use to determine whether FP applies in an auction? I know what I like but I would like to test how outdated my "rules" might be.

[dburn]

Mine are "modified Larry Cohen", who said that pass is forcing only if the janitor thinks it's forcing. My janitor doesn't play bridge, so I don't assume any pass is forcing.

[aguahombre]

In 2/1...when we get in a game force early...or responder goes out of his way to establish a game force rather than blast (exception--splinter raises are descriptive enough. Opener is in total charge if the splinter is in their suit).

If one of us opened 1NT and responder has shown at least invite values.

2C opening bid by us, but not 2N opening.

otherwise not ......that might not be perfect, but that is our agreement ---let's see if others can post their different criteria without using the words "awful" or "bad".

[MarkDean]

I play standard Larry Cohen. However, my partner and I have different janitors, so it sometimes leads to trouble.

[OleBerg]

One of the following has to apply:

1) We have forced to game via a cuebid or a conventional constructive agreement.
2) We are red vs white, and we have bid game via the strongest possible route.
3) We have invited game constructively (That is; an opener facing 10+) and the opponents are at the 5-level.
4) We have opened 2♣. (Gameforce or 20-21 bal.)

A fitbid NEVER establishes a forcing pass.

#2 refers to the bid actually taking us to game level :

So;

1♠ - (Pass) - 3♣* - (4♥)
4♠

* = 6-9 and four card-support.

Would be forcing red vs white, as the 4♠ bidder had no stronger option.

And yes, it can go wrong, but so can not playing it as forcing.

[gnasher]

These make a pass forcing:
- We game-force without agreeing a suit
- We make an invitational+ two-level response or transfer (as opening side) and they have bid to the four level or higher.
- We make a negative double of 3H or higher (as opening side). ie we were forced to bid to 3S or the four level
- We make a slam try
- We make a game-forcing raise, or a cue-bid that forces us to the game level (either as opening side or as defending side).
- Our side opened the bidding, we showed an invitational+ raise, and they have bid to the four level or higher.
- We have bid their suit or 3NT on the way to game, in order to set up a forcing pass (but note that when we might have a 5-3 fit with two balanced hands, 3NT is natural).
- We bid a side suit, after agreeing trumps, on the way to game. Note that this doesn’t apply to fit jumps - we have to agree the suit first.
- They wait for us to bid game, and then save, and the passer hasn’t denied a good hand.
- An enemy passed hand facing a preempt jumps to the five level.

These don’t:
- We make a constructive+ transfer response.
- Negative doubles of 3D or lower
- We make a first-round fit jump or splinter that forces us to the game level.
- Our side opened the bidding, and responder showed a constructive+ raise.
- The other side opened the bidding, we overcalled, and advancer showed a limit raise.
- An enemy unpassed hand facing a preempt jumps to the five level.
- An enemy passed hand facing a preempt jumps to the four level.

[aguahombre]

excellent: more, please . Terribly difficult subject, IMO. And so far we have Modified Cohen on the low side --Gnasher on the high side, and some in between.

[peachy]

aguahombre, on May 15 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

excellent: more, please . Terribly difficult subject, IMO. And so far we have Modified Cohen on the low side --Gnasher on the high side, and some in between.

For more, I found this article/discussion
http://www.districts...%202009-06.aspx

[bluecalm]

Quote

Zia: I play the waiter rule, i.e. if the waiter doesn’t know it’s forcing, it ain’t. In principle, anytime both sides may logically be able to make what they bid, it’s non-forcing.

Given choice I would choose this. Most of my partners insist on playing FP if we reach game in semi constructive+ auction when vulnerable against not though.

Quote

Russ Ekeblad: (...)2. When advancer does not have room to cue bid it DOES NOT create a force unless we are vulnerable and they are non-vulnerable.
Example: They open 1 - 1 - 4 - advancer bids 4.

I really don't like it for example.

Quote

Duboin: (...) Suppose the action after 1NT - Penalty double - Two-of-any-suit. First of all we don't play penalty doubles. Double of two-of-a-minor is takeout and pass is forcing. Over two-of-a-major, double is takeout and pass is non-forcing.

I like this treatment a lot. We switched to t/o doubles in most FP situations.

[gnasher]

peachy, on May 15 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

For more, I found this article/discussion
http://www.districts...%202009-06.aspx

That's really interesting, especially the huge range of styles amongst top players.

Edit: And also the vagueness of some player's agreements.

[whereagles]

Robson/Segal are fine by me:

- When pard made a game-forcing bid or a cue-bid that forces us to game.
- When pard has shown an invitational or better hand and opps are at the 5-level.
- When we made a fit-bid or fit-non-jump at 'red' (i.e. V vs NV)

[gszeszycki]

1. Any 2/1 response in sayc fp up to 2N.
2. Both partners are aware they have at least game forcing values (fp in place no matter how high but limited by rule 3).
3. AT IMPS ESPECIALLY (at MP one board not as critical if you want to stay fixed its up to you). We have bid a game (vul or not) with reasonable expectation of making. If the DOUBLED PENALTY for bidding on will be LESS than the score if opps make their bid FP is in place.

[Cascade]

In first or second seat with the opponent's silent PASS is forcing showing 13+ hcp and any distribution.

[Cascade]

Whenever we have an auction that is explicitly forcing to a certain level we play PASS is forcing.

e.g. cue-raise is forcing to the next level of trumps

Aside from that we would only play a forcing PASS when we have explicitly shown strong slam interest values based on power

[gwnn]

I agree with whereagles except his third line, I don't like rules that are functions of vulnerability even though of course it is probable that the theoretically best agreements should vary based on who is red and who is not.

[Free]

Very simple rules for me:
- whenever the auction is forcing to a certain level (example 1♠-(p)-2NT-(3m)-p where 2NT is INV+, pass is forcing since the auction is forcing to 3♠ ; similar with GF situations, inverted minors, fit jumps,...)
- 1 additional situation: when we're red and partner has shown an invitational or better hand and opps are at the 5-level.

[Hanoi5]

I think there was an excellent post on this some 2 years ago...

[Fluffy]

are people missing the redouble situations on purpose or just forgetting?

to me a first round redouble after partner opened at the 1 level creates a forcing pass situation at all levels.


Goded-Lantaron used to play that FP only applied at odd levels (3 and 5) but not at even ones (2 and 4).

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on May 17 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

are people missing the redouble situations on purpose or just forgetting?

Neither, in my case: I play the redouble as a transfer.

In situations where responder says he has a balanced 11-count (eg double of Michaels), we play forcing passes at all levels.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-May-17, 05:36

[minimonkey]

Zia and Cohen seem to play bridge under different circumstances.

Like me Cohen seems to play bridge in sports centers, conference rooms, and other places with a janitor.

Zia on the other hand only plays in venues which have waiters to ask...must be nice.