[han]

Partner had a 3-2-4-4 17-count btw, spades wasn't very good.

[Patapon]

To me the pass isn't forcing.
If the pass is forcing,does it mean I should double with xxxx, x,xxxx,xxxx ?
Then if my opponent knows this he could bid 5H when he thinks he makes this contract so that is doubled each time.
I understand the logic that makes you want to play this auction forcing but for practical purpose it seems wrong.
I don’t want to” build “my system on a practical position of the game.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Jan 30 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

Partner had a 3-2-4-4 17-count btw, spades wasn't very good.

It's ok they bid 7♥

I don't want to seem like sour grapes since I don't know his hand, and slam in a minor apparently went down anyway. But it seems to me most 3244 17 counts would just want to pass it out (if your pass was nonforcing) and accept their small plus, rather than invite partner to pull to what is almost sure to be a minus.

[MFA]

Patapon, on Jan 30 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

If the pass is forcing,does it mean I should double with xxxx, x,xxxx,xxxx ?

Yes, this is a mandatory double if playing forcing pass. Passing would show values.

jdonn:

Quote

But it seems to me most 3244 17 counts would just want to pass it out (if your pass was nonforcing) and accept their small plus, rather than invite partner to pull to what is almost sure to be a minus.

Something is very odd here.

If we play forcing pass, responder can
- pass over 5♥, inviting a bid.
- double 5♥ noninviting, expecting to play 5♥X.
This is all fine.

But without forcing pass, responder can
- double 5♥, inviting a bid
- pass NF with a bad hand, but perhaps pull partner's double anyway?!

Why is partner not allowed to double 5♥ to say it goes down with just marginal extras? When playing forcing pass we are obliged to double them, and if this can possibly be reasonable, surely we would want to double them very often also without the forcing pass convention! So I don't see how a subsequent double from the original doubler could encourage a pull in this situation.
If the original doubler wants to bid on to 5♠ or slam, he must gamble over partner's pass, just as he must gamble over partner's double, a possible yarborough, had we played forcing pass.

[fred]

MFA, on Jan 31 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

Patapon, on Jan 30 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

If the pass is forcing,does it mean I should double with xxxx, x,xxxx,xxxx ?

Yes, this is a mandatory double if playing forcing pass. Passing would show values.

jdonn:

Quote

But it seems to me most 3244 17 counts would just want to pass it out (if your pass was nonforcing) and accept their small plus, rather than invite partner to pull to what is almost sure to be a minus.

Something is very odd here.

If we play forcing pass, responder can
- pass over 5♥, inviting a bid.
- double 5♥ noninviting, expecting to play 5♥X.
This is all fine.

But without forcing pass, responder can
- double 5♥, inviting a bid
- pass NF with a bad hand, but perhaps pull partner's double anyway?!

Why is partner not allowed to double 5♥ to say it goes down with just marginal extras? When playing forcing pass we are obliged to double them, and if this can possibly be reasonable, surely we would want to double them very often also without the forcing pass convention! So I don't see how a subsequent double from the original doubler could encourage a pull in this situation.
If the original doubler wants to bid on to 5♠ or slam, he must gamble over partner's pass, just as he must gamble over partner's double, a possible yarborough, had we played forcing pass.

This is a very good post IMO. I think you are right on MFA.

If Pass is non-forcing then the original doubler has the luxury of being able to Pass out 5H if he wants, but he will normally want to DBL because he will normally expect 5H to go down.

He has to be able to do this - the 2nd DBL is penalty and the (non-forcing) passer should rarely (if ever) pull.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

I never meant a second double would say "please bid partner". By saying it invites partner to bid, I meant he might bid if you make a second double (in which case your probable plus becomes a probable minus) but if you just pass it out you don't give partner the chance to make that mistake. Nonetheless I clearly have a different idea of what a second double shows than others. Good hand, sure, but penalty? I guess I'll have to adjust my thinking.

Fred, would your view of what a second doubles shows change if the opponents were bidding diamonds, in which case they could just be bidding 5 to make game so you can't just automatically assume they are messing with you?

[fred]

jdonn, on Jan 31 2008, 03:00 AM, said:

Fred, would your view of what a second doubles shows change if the opponents were bidding diamonds, in which case they could just be bidding 5 to make game so you can't just automatically assume they are messing with you?

Agree that if their suit was diamonds (or clubs of course) the auction is very different. In fact, with my regular partner Pass would only be forcing if the 5D bidder was a passed hand whereas Pass would always be forcing if their suit was hearts (or spades).

For us the rule is that Pass is only forcing in these "both sides have a fit" auctions if:

1) We know we have enough combined high cards to play game on power

or

2) The auction makes it sound like the opponents are obviously sacrificing

For me the 5H bid means the auction falls into category 2 (or at least is very likely to). This is not the case if the opponents' suit is diamonds and this changes the meaning of Pass (at least in my partnerships).

Note that for me vulnerability does not enter into the equation. Many excellent players would not agree with this.

Whether or not Pass is forcing, however, the basic message of the DBL is still the same to me:

I expect to get a plus by defending and to the best of my knowledge this is the best result we can realistically hope for.

What constitutes "my knowledge", however, changes depending on the nature of Pass. I agree that if you play that Pass is always non-forcing, for sure the lower the strain of the opponents' suit, the more often the 2nd DBL will be pulled.

In practice, if neither partner has a clear bid at the 5-level or higher, it is normal to take what you can get from 5H (or 5whatever) doubled. In other words, trying to guess that your trump fit is sufficient to play at this level is not a good way to make a living.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

what if this Devious Dude looks at his hand with lots of hearts and aces and spaces and voids and all and with one eye on our CC (and pretty confident, knowing partner's preempting tendencies on yarboros, that slam is not going to be 50%) , bids 5♥?

[whereagles]

fred, on Jan 30 2008, 09:49 PM, said:

Even though nowadays it is fashionable for experts to say "I play fewer forcing Passes than anyone I know", I think most would agree that it makes sense to play Pass as forcing here.

I disagree with you because this will demand too much memory work for such an unusual auction. If it goes

(2♥) dbl (4♥) ??

you'll probably agree advancer's pass is not forcing (regardless of vulnerability, even). Now, if it goes instead

(2♥) dbl (5♥) ??

it's probably true they aren't going to make it and therefore it should be correct to play pass as forcing, even if advancer is broke (because opener is bound to have extras).

So in 1st auction pass IS NOT forcing, but in 2nd auction pass IS forcing. Unless you're a genious in devising simple, mnemonic forcing pass rules that pard will remember even in infrequent auctions, I'd be very, very weary to define the 2nd auction as forcing, eventhough it probably should be.

If you see what I mean... sometimes I mess up

[whereagles]

The problem is, what is clear to one player may not be clear to another... If I'm going to make a rule, I prefer it not to be too ambiguous.

[gnasher]

fred, on Jan 31 2008, 05:52 AM, said:

Whether or not Pass is forcing, however, the basic message of the DBL is still the same to me:

I expect to get a plus by defending and to the best of my knowledge this is the best result we can realistically hope for.

When pass is non-forcing, you might play double as "I think they're going down", or as "There's a good chance that we could make game, and I think this is going down".

The second meaning, which I prefer, means that your partner will sometimes bid on to something he thinks is making. Because of that, you will sometimes have to pass even though you think they're going down.

So, if we assume perfect judgement * in the context of what each player knows:
- When nobody could make anything, we get a smaller penalty.
- We gain when when partner bids on to something that makes and is worth more than the penalty.

So, I lose when opponents were wrong and I gain some of the time that they were right. Isn't that better?


* I'd better point out, before somebody else does, that the more the double invites action, the more there is scope for misjudgment.

[MickyB]

I think most of the times that either I or pard has preempted to 5♥, it has been making, so I don't think it's at all obvious that the oppo are saving here.

I don't think it should be allowed to play sequences like this as forcing unless it's on your convention card somewhere.

[Codo]

MickyB, on Jan 31 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

I think most of the times that either I or pard has preempted to 5♥, it has been making, so I don't think it's at all obvious that the oppo are saving here.

I don't think it should be allowed to play sequences like this as forcing unless it's on your convention card somewhere.

1. You don´t bid 5 Heart often enough if you never fail.
2. I doubt that there is enough space on the coca for this meta-agreement about forcing pass situations.

[MickyB]

I didn't say that we never fail.

There's a space on the WBF convention card for "unusual forcing pass sequences" or wtte. This should be included there.