[MickyB]

luke warm, on Jun 18 2005, 10:47 PM, said:

i'm sorry, i don't agree with that... assuming the 2♣ opener actually has his bid, how can it be a gamble to actually do what your p'ship requires, that is, bid?

Most will open 2♣ on hands that require a little something from partner. Some say that you should open 2♣ if you can make game opposite two queens. I suspect that the majority (at a guess, 80%) of 2♣ openers don't have good play for game opposite a misfitting yarborough. If your hand suggests that 2♣ is safe and that you are unlikely to have game on opposite most 2♣ openers, then it is a gamble to bid.

[MickyB]

Free, on Jun 18 2005, 11:18 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jun 18 2005, 10:17 PM, said:

Yes, I know it is (currently) impossible for such a proof to exist. Just imagine that there is one Imagine that computer analysis shows that you will gain an average of one IMP by passing here over someone who makes a negative response. Yes it is a complete gamble, but so is choosing not to pass!

Why would I try to imagine impossible things? Just imagine that opening 1M on a singleton in a 2/1 system wins 1 imp on average, what would you do next time? Imagine opening 4NT on a 0HCP hand wins at MP's. Come on, get real plz.

Yes, of course I would do it if it was likely to gain IMPs or MPs. I like to win at this game (no comments Mark ) so if something is likely to gain IMPs, I'll do it! Of course, your two scenarios are quite clearly likely to lose IMPs, whereas my scenario isn't clearcut at all!

I probably could have phrased my post better. I am just trying to understand the majority's reasons for being so against passing a 2♣ opener - I'm not sure whether it is because they don't want to go against their agreements, or just because it is their belief that passing is unlikely to be the winning action.

[pbleighton]

"I'm not sure whether it is because they don't want to go against their agreements, or just because it is their belief that passing is unlikely to be the winning action."

It's both.

1) You have no idea what the 2C hand is like - it is unlimited.

2) Because of 1), you really can never have a hand where the chances of going down in game (that you know) is much more than 50%.

3) If you have a hand where you can somehow determine that it is 51% that any game goes down, you should still bid. Partnership trust has value.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

the majority's reasons for being so against passing a 2♣ opener - I'm not sure whether it is because they don't want to go against their agreements, or just because it is their belief that passing is unlikely to be the winning action

It is neither. It is simply because there is no way (short of mysticism) to know what the winning action on this auction might be. If you don't know, you can't make a decision for the partnership. It's really that simple.

WinstonM

[luke warm]

Quote

Most will open 2♣ on hands that require a little something from partner. Some say that you should open 2♣ if you can make game opposite two queens.

even if true, so what?

Quote

I suspect that the majority (at a guess, 80%) of 2♣ openers don't have good play for game opposite a misfitting yarborough.

again, so what?

Quote

If your hand suggests that 2♣ is safe and that you are unlikely to have game on opposite most 2♣ openers, then it is a gamble to bid.

and that's the crux of the problem... you have no earthly idea what opener has, but you're making a decision based on what? your reading of your hand and determining that there is no play for game?

i have changed my mind... i will not knowingly play with any person who says to me "2♣ is a game force (which isn't really forcing at all) unless i decide it isn't, based on criteria i will determine at the time... what this criteria is, i can't say... but, much like obscenity, i'll know it when i see it"

[MickyB]

Winstonm, on Jun 19 2005, 02:34 AM, said:

Quote

the majority's reasons for being so against passing a 2♣ opener - I'm not sure whether it is because they don't want to go against their agreements, or just because it is their belief that passing is unlikely to be the winning action

It is neither. It is simply because there is no way (short of mysticism) to know what the winning action on this auction might be. If you don't know, you can't make a decision for the partnership. It's really that simple.

WinstonM

There are all sorts of situations where you can't know what the winning action is. In the rest of them, you make your best guess.

[Chamaco]

MickyB, on Jun 19 2005, 09:59 AM, said:

There are all sorts of situations where you can't know what the winning action is. In the rest of them, you make your best guess.

In this kind of situations, where you do not have a clue, give your pard a chance to participate to the decision: he may know better than you, especially since he made a forcing opening.

it really puzzles me how a non-beginner can think that passing a 2C opening can be acceptable: if responder knows nothing of opener's hand, how can he even dream of taking such a strong decision like passing a forcing bid without consulting partner ?

[david_c]

Agree with Mike -

It would obviously be very frustrating for partner if we passed 2♣ and game would have made. Which is why I'd never be able to bring myself to do it. But still, there's no reason why it can't be the right thing to do in theory.

I think people are prejudiced by the fact that the probability of the 2♣ opener genuinely having game in hand is quite high. This makes it very unlikely that a pass is right on any given hand. But there are other similar situations where pass has more to be said for it: for example after (1♦):2♦ played as weak-or-strong Michaels. I suspect that there are a few people who would consider passing this on a misfit with long diamonds, even if they would never pass a strong 2♣ opening. And yet it's still possible that the Michaels bidder has a genuine game force. This is the same situation as the strong 2♣ opening, only the probabilities are different.

[Free]

MickyB, on Jun 19 2005, 12:09 AM, said:

Free, on Jun 18 2005, 11:18 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jun 18 2005, 10:17 PM, said:

Yes, I know it is (currently) impossible for such a proof to exist. Just imagine that there is one Imagine that computer analysis shows that you will gain an average of one IMP by passing here over someone who makes a negative response. Yes it is a complete gamble, but so is choosing not to pass!

Why would I try to imagine impossible things? Just imagine that opening 1M on a singleton in a 2/1 system wins 1 imp on average, what would you do next time? Imagine opening 4NT on a 0HCP hand wins at MP's. Come on, get real plz.

Yes, of course I would do it if it was likely to gain IMPs or MPs. I like to win at this game (no comments Mark ) so if something is likely to gain IMPs, I'll do it! Of course, your two scenarios are quite clearly likely to lose IMPs, whereas my scenario isn't clearcut at all!

I probably could have phrased my post better. I am just trying to understand the majority's reasons for being so against passing a 2♣ opener - I'm not sure whether it is because they don't want to go against their agreements, or just because it is their belief that passing is unlikely to be the winning action.

My scenario's are as likely to win as yours imo. If partner has a GF hand, you WILL score better when you actually bid the game rather than stay in a silly 2♣+5...

What will you do next time with a hand like AKQJT98-AKQ-Kx-x? Will you DARE to open 2♣ if you know your 'partner' passed at least once?? Or will you open 1♠ with even more chance partner passes? Perhaps 4♠ will work out fine for you...
Passing forcing bids is absolute anti-bridge, and someone who does this with me won't be calling himself my 'partner' anymore. It's just laughing in your face and saying: "look man, I really don't care what you have, I am the only one who can evaluate a hand, I'm the one who only counts hcp and therefor I'm the only good player at this table" without so many words.

[Chamaco]

david_c, on Jun 19 2005, 11:47 AM, said:

Agree with Mike -

It would obviously be very frustrating for partner if we passed 2♣ and game would have made. Which is why I'd never be able to bring myself to do it. But still, there's no reason why it can't be the right thing to do in theory.

I think people are prejudiced by the fact that the probability of the 2♣ opener genuinely having game in hand is quite high. This makes it very unlikely that a pass is right on any given hand. But there are other similar situations where pass has more to be said for it: for example after (1♦):2♦ played as weak-or-strong Michaels. I suspect that there are a few people who would consider passing this on a misfit with long diamonds, even if they would never pass a strong 2♣ opening. And yet it's still possible that the Michaels bidder has a genuine game force. This is the same situation as the strong 2♣ opening, only the probabilities are different.

No, this is not the point.
We are not arguing about the *effectiveness* of the bid.

We are talking of taking unilateral decisions without consulting partner.
And, here, this is most serious offense I can think of, because - even if some times you HAVE to take unilateral decisions in bidding and play, - in this specific case you DO NOT HAVE A CLUE of opener's hand, and there is no single reason why it is responder who should guess without giving opener a chance to bid.

==========================================

The point is not "how many chances are there that pass is right?"

The point is that, EVEN WHEN IT GIVES YOU A TOP, it means that the passer decides only with his cards without consulting parttner despite partner has made a forcing bid.

The point is: even when you get a good result, it is still wrong towards your pard.

So I do not care whether passing here is right 20%, 50% or 80% of the times, it is still the worse offense to partnership bidding I can think of.

==========================================

[helene_t]

So partner's judgement was, obviously, that it would be a good idea to force you to bid at least once, even with zero HCPs. Suppose your judgement is that it would be a good idea not to do so. Why would you assume your own judgement is better than partner's?

If you're playing with your regular partner you are probably at approximately the same level. So partner's judgement is as good as yours. Otherwise, seek another partner. Or maybe this omnibus 2♣ opening is just too complicated for your partnership to handle. Then seek a system that will be easier to play for your partnership.

If you're a teacher, playing with a student, you should bid correctly for pure pedagogical reasons.

If you're playing in an indy with some gozzilla partner, then go ahead and pass his forcing bids. He may start chatting with block capitals and mark you as an enemy, but you don't care.

In one partnership, I play with a beginner. I trust that she's doing her best but I can't trust that she allways adheres to the system or that her judgement is allways good. So this is the teacher/student scenario. Kind of difficult because I'm not a teacher by profession (or talent, for that matter) and because we play in the club where we have 7 minutes per board, which as way too little to explain why all those bidding disasters happen and what to learn from them. So it's tempting to, for example, just jump to 3NT as soon as there is some indication that that might be the right spot instead of going through FSF sequences and such which allways create havoc. So that's my problem. One solution might be to drop all conventions (attitude signals, stayman, t/o-doubles) and play all jumps as strong, until the basic of the bidding is under control. Maybe it would be a solution not to play at the club for the first year or so. But passing forcing bids would certainly be counter-productive.

[TheoKole]

Scoring: IMP

---

Not long ago I opened this hand as 2 clubs, with an on occassional partner at our local club. Thank goodness he didn't pass as you did, but he gave me misinformation in our subsiquent auction that made me believe that 6 spades had a 75% chance of succeeding which I subsiquently bid.

He then CHANGED!!! the bid to 6NT because he had a singleton spade. I made 6NT contract on a double squeeze, all the time sweating it out because my opponents were good enough to break the squeeze if they realized what was happening when I intentionally lost a trick.

6 spades also made on the hand against ANY defense without a trump lead.

Even though we had a good result on this hand (through a bit of luck) my trust in him is 00000. I think it is a given that I haven't played with him again.

Just my thoughts,

Cheers

[MickyB]

Free, on Jun 19 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

What will you do next time with a hand like AKQJT98-AKQ-Kx-x? Will you DARE to open 2♣ if you know your 'partner' passed at least once?? Or will you open 1♠ with even more chance partner passes? Perhaps 4♠ will work out fine for you...
Passing forcing bids is absolute anti-bridge, and someone who does this with me won't be calling himself my 'partner' anymore. It's just laughing in your face and saying: "look man, I really don't care what you have, I am the only one who can evaluate a hand, I'm the one who only counts hcp and therefor I'm the only good player at this table" without so many words.

Opening anything other than 2♣ is ridiculous on this hand, whatever has happened on the previous board. Even the keenest passer of forcing bids won't pass 2♣ anything approaching 1% of the time, whereas opening 4♠ will miss slam maybe 30% of the time. If a partner is that temperamental then of course I wouldn't do it...if he is my partner and is that temperamental then he must be paying me, and I need the cash

Passing 2♣ is laughing in noones face...it isn't saying that you don't trust pard...it's saying that you believe that it is more likely than not that game won't make opposite your meager collection so you'll try to do well by passing.

[Blofeld]

Quote

What will you do next time with a hand like AKQJT98-AKQ-Kx-x? Will you DARE to open 2♣ if you know your 'partner' passed at least once??

I wouldn't dream of bidding anything else! It would be a massive betrayal of partnership trust to do otherwise.

Passing 2♣ may not be a betrayal of partnership trust. As David said, I don't know that I could ever bring myself to do it at the table. I don't know whether there are hands on which it is the percentage action (and if so, I imagine that they are very few - certainly the hand that Wayne passed on wouldn't qualify). But passing does not declare that you distrust partner. It says "Partner, you just opened a hand which is a game force or close to such. I don't know what you've got, but I am forced to take a guess here. By bidding on I give you another chance to speak, but on the basis of my hand I know that there are many possible hands that you may hold [implied: and I trust you to hold one of them] on which this will take us too high, in which case bidding on will lose. On the other hand, passing will gain when 2♣ makes and bidding takes us too high, and lose when you had a genuine game force. My best guess is to pass."

While we're at it, one possible advantage to passing 2♣ is that it may sometimes put your LHO under pressure. Perhaps your partner could make a ♥ game in his hand, but the opponents can make a ♠ game. Who will balance after 2♣ - P - P - ?

TheoKole, I think that the case you describe sounds worse than some of the possible passings of 2♣ being hypothesised (though I don't know the details), as there had been room to have a conversation. But even so, even if there were no reasons for him to think that he should bid 6NT, then it can be called a judgement lapse. Is that really reason enough to refuse to play with someone?

[david_c]

MickyB, on Jun 19 2005, 01:05 PM, said:

Opening anything other than 2♣ is ridiculous on this hand, whatever has happened on the previous board. Even the keenest passer of forcing bids won't pass 2♣ anything approaching 1% of the time, whereas opening 4♠ will miss slam maybe 30% of the time.

You beat me to it ...

Playing with someone who might pass 2♣ once or twice in a lifetime, this hand is still a 2♣ opening bid. Of course, we bid this knowing that if partner has the worst possible hand (in this case, one on which he will pass), then we will get a bad score - but is that anything new?

[Free]

david_c, on Jun 19 2005, 02:10 PM, said:

MickyB, on Jun 19 2005, 01:05 PM, said:

Opening anything other than 2♣ is ridiculous on this hand, whatever has happened on the previous board. Even the keenest passer of forcing bids won't pass 2♣ anything approaching 1% of the time, whereas opening 4♠ will miss slam maybe 30% of the time.

You beat me to it ...

Playing with someone who might pass 2♣ once or twice in a lifetime, this hand is still a 2♣ opening bid. Of course, we bid this knowing that if partner has the worst possible hand (in this case, one on which he will pass), then we will get a bad score - but is that anything new?

Yes, that's completely new to me

[MickyB]

Chamaco, on Jun 19 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

==========================================

The point is not "how many chances are there that pass is right?"

The point is that, EVEN WHEN IT GIVES YOU A TOP, it means that the passer decides only with his cards without consulting parttner despite partner has made a forcing bid.

The point is: even when you get a good result, it is still wrong towards your pard.

So I do not care whether passing here is right 20%, 50% or 80% of the times, it is still the worse offense to partnership bidding I can think of.

==========================================

Wouldn't you prefer to be in a partnership where you trust each other to exercise judgement and to do the best thing on the hand in question, with no recriminations for doing so? Where you are thinking about the current board, instead of what you or pard could have done better on the last one? In how many other situations do you do something to keep partner happy instead of trying to do your best on the board? You have enough things to be worrying about at the table as it is.

It cannot be desireable for you to have to avoid a call that will be right 80% of the time.

[MickyB]

Blofeld, on Jun 19 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

Who will balance after 2♣ - P - P - ?

*Slowly raises hand*

[Free]

sceptic, on Jun 19 2005, 02:23 PM, said:

I would like to add something here, that I never mentioned in my original post, after my pass, why does no one balance?, if they bid, surely it would be easy to work out I have a crap had with clubs (albeit crap ones)?

because 2♣ after such an auction is usually a VERY poor result for the opponents, so why give them another chance to bid to a better one??

[Free]

MickyB, on Jun 19 2005, 02:21 PM, said:

Wouldn't you prefer to be in a partnership where you trust each other to exercise judgement and to do the best thing on the hand in question, with no recriminations for doing so? Where you are thinking about the current board, instead of what you or pard could have done better on the last one? In how many other situations do you do something to keep partner happy instead of trying to do your best on the board? You have enough things to be worrying about at the table as it is.

It cannot be desireable for you to have to avoid a call that will be right 80% of the time.

Yes, I prefer to play in a partnership where both players can trust each other to exercise judgement and to do the best thing on the hand in question. But if one player passes the other one's FORCING bid, HE DOESN'T ALLOW HIS PARTNER to exercise that judgement, so you're not playing in such a partnership you're dreaming about...