Help
Quote
why letting them not make doubled is more important than giving more edge to ourselves about making the right decision when stakes are very high, at slam level ?
Quote
I strongly consider that playing forcing pass on this concrete position is superior, you are risking very little, forcing yourself to double or bid means you might find a lucky save, or lose a few IMPs for playing doubled. But having a forcing pass available adds 33% to opener's options, which should increase slam accuracy enough to be worth the slams doubled and made which will most often not compare with the same contract so will be worth very few.
You are eliminating your option to find a save. On hands where it might go pass pass 6S in a natural situation, it will go double all pass playing forcing pass.
I mean, as far as I understand it, pass says I think we might have a slam pard, and X says I don't think we might have a slam. So if partner doubles with 0-1 trick and you are the responder you must pass since he might just have them beat, but if he could have just passed saying he doesn't have them beatthen we have the option of bidding 6S (or if partner could double saying he has them beat, we would have an easy pass).
You are increasing your slam bidding accuracy a little bit, but you are decreasing your saving accuracy since you can no longer save. If we know it's our hand and expect them to almost always go down this is a logical treatment, but the more often they are just making the less often this works out well, and that is not only because we will double them when they make sometimes.
For a forcing pass to work out then
A) Opener must have a slam try when his partner has failed to cuebid or make a stronger bid than raising to 5S.
B) If we didn't play a forcing pass, opener would make the wrong decision. Remember, like ~half the time opener would guess the winning thing anyways
C) Even playing forcing pass, and even on hands where opener would have made the wrong decision but now gets to pass, responder must make the right decision. A forcing pass is a very general statement and often responder won't know whether he has the right hand or not anyways, so it's not like this is a lock to happen.
Yes, it is possible that all of A, B, and C are met and we gain by being able to make a forcing pass. However, we are losing any ability to save (basically, instead of openers bids meaning "I have them beat" or "I don't" they have become "I have slam interest" vs "I don't"), and we are losing imps when we double them and they make it. And you guys are understating those imps, which become more likely the more often they are to be making.
I don't understand why the conversation should be about whether we think WE can make a slam when neither of us has shown that much and responder has not slam tried, vs the conversation being about whether THEY can make a slam when they have shown a lot and also, you know, bid a slam, especially with the added downside of the former forcing us to double them on top of everything else.