[luke warm]

mike777, on Jun 16 2005, 02:35 PM, said:

Ok upon further thought and rereading these posts I guess passing 2clubs is best:
1) My bbo partners never have a strong 2club opener anyway, they have overbid.
2) Read on a BBO forum post best to let strong hand be declarer
3) My BBO partner said we are playing weak 2 bids
4) Read on BBO forum when in doubt, pass is best. Pass in not a dirty word, etc.
5) My opp's always balance anyway so now I have described my weak hand best.
6) If we get a good result, that is all that matters. Did not Bob Hamman say winning bridge players make the winning bid not the best or right bid? Let others debate theory I want to win.
7) I always forget what we agreed to play over 2clubs anyway, too many choices.
8) What is all this stuff about partnership harmony and trust anyway? Every partner hated Lew Mathe and he won all the time and they hated him every hand.
9) I thought we agreed to open those hand types at the one level to conserve bidding space.
10) I knew you would have a rebid problem if you opened that hand 2 clubs, NOW THAT I HAVE PASSED DO YOU TRUST ME? YOU REALLY DO HAVE A REBID PROBLEM SEE!

heheheheheh

[JSilver]

MickyB, on Jun 12 2005, 11:09 PM, said:

you want partners who will let you use your judgement in any situation.

Certainly partner should use his judgment. But if he doesn't have better judgment than to pass a 2♣ opener, then he won't be my partner often.

[Chamaco]

Quote

Seems like there are two occasions when passing a forcing bid is acceptable (other than a forget I suppose):

(1) When partner previously made a nonforcing call, and I don't have the values for my previous bidding. Examples are auctions like 1♠-1NT-3♦. If I have a zero-count and bid 1NT just to improve the contract, I can now pass 3♦. After all, I could've passed 1♠ -- partner can't have a hand that wants game opposite nothing.

Do you realy think this is a good reason to pass a forcing bid ?
Even if you bid 1NT with nothing, well, you got into trouble, you shd have passed even in misfit, but now you have to respond to a forcing bid.

I think that if you have made a previous stretch you should have anticipated the problems, and live with them: in any case, if you overbid at previous round, you cannot pass a forcing bid to "fix" your previous error.

Passing a forcing bid only turns a partnership game into a "solo" game, I think.

[epeeist]

There seems to be a bit of a mismatch between the title of this thread, "the idiot passes" and the phrasing in the original post, "what do you think of my pass...".

So I assume, given the identity of the poster, that sceptic was not the one who passed the 2♣ bid (unless by a misclick ). I also assume the bidding system was one in which 2♣ was strong and forcing.

Those speculations aside, of course I disagree with the pass EXCEPT if there is other information that might be relevant. Is it the last board in the round of a "total points" tournament in which NS either have a comfortable lead so that it doesn't matter if 2♣ is set? Or contrariwise do NS need fewer than 90 points to win? Then passing the bid might make sense. Even in a "normal" situation, the passer might have reason to believe that the 2♣ bidder mistakenly thinks all 2-level bids are weak because of prior experience with that bidder as a partner, etc. (if so is there an ethical duty to send private chat to opponents that they should ask p about the bid which may be nonstandard?).

How I react (after hand over) will depend on p's profile. Novice or beginner I'll be firm but friendly, explaining why it was wrong to pass ("P, in the system we're using, you MUST respond to my bid even if you have zero points -- I could easily have game in my own hand or be void in clubs or the like..."). If an intermediate or better partner passed like this, unless they say after the hand "sorry misclick" or something, I would immediately set them to "enemy". Not only would I, I did, on the only occasion it happened to me...

[Blofeld]

Oh, Wayne (sceptic) passed 2♣ [as for that matter did I, after ascertaining that there wasn't a misclick - but my pass is perhaps more excusable ], but I don't think that that's an offence worth making enemies over. It was a poor judgement call, but this was a friendly table and I don't see anything wrong with trying some more erratic ways of bidding hands when in a friendly environment. Apart from anything else, if they're a bad idea, it tends to help give you a better idea of just why they're a bad idea. Hanging people who are deliberately screwing up the game is fine, but he was passing because he honestly thought that that might be the best action. And surely this is the time (if any) to bid like that, rather than in a tournament, for instance?

[Elianna]

Chamaco, on Jun 17 2005, 12:58 AM, said:

Passing a forcing bid only turns a partnership game into a "solo" game, I think.

I think that the point that was trying to be made, is that if you've ALREADY turned a partnership game into a "solo" game (ie, by psyching) then you shouldn't aggravate it more by bidding on.

For example, if you open 1NT (usually done in third seat) with a 5=1=3=4 shape, and a 4-count (when you're supposed to have, say, 15-17), then whatever partner does, you could pass.

This is different (in my mind only, perhaps) than, say, if you opened 1NT in first or second chair with 15 points, and a 2=2=7=2 shape and decided to pass partner's 2♦ bid because you think that it will play better there.

Anyway, this isn't the place to debate if psyching is RIGHT, but I just wanted to point out that I don't believe that the action under consideration is what to do if you stretched by a point to make a bid.

[Al_U_Card]

I never cease to be amazed at the diversity of opinion on what, for me, seem to be fairly straightforward issues......That being said, I respect the diversity of opinion and leave this example; You are blindfolded with hands tied in the middle of a minefield (almost as life and death as most bridge hands....lol) and your spouse is yelling instructions how to get out safely. When they yell "1 step to the left!" you decide that you would rather step to the right.......end of partnership and story and lesson (for now).

[inquiry]

I can think of a situation where I might very well pass a forcing 2♣ opening bid.

1) The game almost certainly would have to be matchpoint
2) It is late in the event, and I am fairly certain I need a cold top to win (maybe it is a barometer game, and I know exactly where I stand).
3) I have a very weak hand and a lot of clubs.

Here, rather than respond a negative 2♦ or 2♥, I might very well take a chance to create a much needed huge swing by passing. Good bridge? No. We could miss a laydown 4♠ or some such bid by every other pair in the room. But if an average does me no good... I might as well take a calcutated gamble.

I think the chances of the right situation coming up is extremely remote however.

Ben

[luis]

My view is:
Pass is wrong because 2♣ is forcing, so when a bid is forcing pass is wrong.
Sometimes a wrong bid can be succesful as in this example.

What I don't like are the posts saying things like "lose your pd", "won't play with you anymore", etc etc. You guys are spoiled people, you need to play with my pd some seasons and you will become more friendly, more open and a better pd.

If my pd passes 2♣, then I play 2♣ and if it was right it was right and if it was wrong it was wrong, I wouldn't make a single comment since pd knows that what he did is wrong but I won't trash him for trying to win and I really welcome some creative decisions from time to time. Even when passing 2♣ lead to disaster the partnership is in a better state, you can't have a better pd than a pd that doesn't say anything when you pass his strong 2♣ opening.

[Blofeld]

I always hate those forum posts which amount to "I agree", but ...

... well said, Luis.

[Al_U_Card]

likewise......partner may not always be right, but he is always your partner

[luke warm]

yes, luis is right *but* ... when you open a forcing bid and your partner passes, it has to affect you in the future... you'll have to always know that, regardless of your hand, your partner might take it upon himself to pass... that, on occasion, your partner will unilaterally make himself the captain

[EricK]

luke warm, on Jun 17 2005, 11:34 PM, said:

yes, luis is right *but* ... when you open a forcing bid and your partner passes, it has to affect you in the future... you'll have to always know that, regardless of your hand, your partner might take it upon himself to pass... that, on occasion, your partner will unilaterally make himself the captain

Why should this affect you more than when eg partner misdefends a hand.

Say you open 3♥ opponents get to 6♠ and you lead a ♣. Now this is very likely to be a singleton. What would happen if partner wins his Ace and returns a ♥? Would you never lead a singleton again?

If you just make the correct bids and don't worry about partner, then at least one of you will be playing correctly. If you bid something else because of what partner may or may not do then it is guaranteed that one of the partnership is making a mistake - and it is YOU.

Eric

[luke warm]

i don't think the two cases are remotely similar... if you're playing a system that has a 2c bid as an artificial game force, you should honor your partner's forcing bid... if you're playing a system that says "always return your partner's lead," he should return a heart in your example.. any other return would have the same effect, but are you playing such a system?

otoh, if the 2c bid means "this may or may not be game forcing, do what you think best," passing is fine.. an opening lead isn't a command, it's a suggestion... the lead of a heart vs. a contract doesn't make me captain... a forcing bid should be a command (hence the word "forcing"), and bestows captainship (unless or until something else comes to light)

[EricK]

They are similar if you look at them the right way!

Presumably you have a reason to make a forcing bid and, by passing, partner is ignoring your reason or assuming you don't have a reason or misinterpreting your reason.

When you play a card, partner similarly has a "duty" to work out what your reason for playing that card was. If he doesn't return the correct card it is because he is either ignoring your reasons, assuming you don't have any, or misinterpreting them.

See, they're identical

Eric

[luke warm]

except for the fact that one is forcing and the other isn't, yes they're identical

[Echognome]

Scoring: MP

(1♣) - 1NT - (P) - 2♣
All Pass!

---

Funnily enough this hand came up last night. Partner tried to mastermind by passing 2♣ Stayman. ("I had a feeling you were trying to get out.")

Not only was 2♣ a bottom, the director called over to our table later on to check that the cards were played the right direction at our table! lol

Was I annoyed? Yes. But we will play again in the next event? Yes. He apologized for his bid and knew it was going against our partnership agreements (since we play systems on after a 1NT overcall.)

[mikestar]

Let me be clear about my take on this--no other situation cited here is comparable to the intentional passing of a GF opening by a non-beginnner, not even passing a Precision 1♣, which is a horrible mastermind but has a decent chance of being right and probably won't miss a game.

The argument that passing 2♣ is comparable to not returning partner's suit is patent nonsense. It it pefectly possible given the sight of the dummy and one's own hand to rationally determine that not returning partner's suit is the best course, indeed in some cases one can discern that returning partner's suit is fatal. Of course one might misanalyse but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the situation.

1♠-1NT-3♦-P is also not comparable even though it is a GF auction--it is GF predicated on the 1NT bidder having a modicum of values, opener can't have game in hand or he would have opened 2♣. So if my partner elected to follow this sequence with void xxxx xxxx xxxxx I would expect him to pass 3♦--if I were to critisize anything it would be the 1NT response.

2♣ GF has a near game lower limit and no upper limit whatever and no information about shape. Maybe someone will run a simulation that shows passing with xx xx xx xxxxxxx is a winning action--but it will never win by enough to pay for the damage to partnership harmony.

In the bridge criminal code, passing 2♣ is high treason. Death by slow torture follwed by eternal damnation.


This discussion excludes the case where you are reasonably certain the 2♣ opener is an idiot and you weren't wanting to play with him again anyway.

It also excludes cases where partner is trying 2/1 after playing only Precision for 20 years and the opponent's mannerisms indicate they have cards-- that is any case where you can rationally determine via authorised information that partner's 2♣ is likely to be a gross error (not an overbid).

It further exlcludes Ben's example where one must get a cold top on the last board to have a chance--in this context, it is no different from any other extreme shot.

In general, I'll accept any rational argument--but asserting that passing 2♣ is likely to be a winner in the particular case without trying to analyze the horrific tradeoffs in partnership confidence is blatantly irrational.

[EricK]

But what I don't see is why partnership confidence should be affected more by this than by any other mistake.

The specific instance I quoted of a non-beginner not returning partner's suit when it is an obvious singleton (rather than the general case of just not returning partner's suit) is a far more serious offence than passing a GF 2♣ opening. I would expect that such a player would never be any use in defense.

Why should our confidence in partner be less affected by such lapses?

Eric

[Winstonm]

Quote

But what I don't see is why partnership confidence should be affected more by this than by any other mistake.

Because, unless distracted or some other unknown reason, passing is not a mistake - it is unbridled arrogance magnified by unforgiveable insult squared.

UAxUI2=U I no play A no more.

WinstonM