Forcing pass or not?

[Free]

The auction (2/1 GF), we're Vulnerable, opponents are NV:

1♠ - pass - 1NT! - Dbl

2♠ - pass - 2NT - Dbl

pass - 3♣ - 3♠ - 5♣

pass? - pass - ...

[Guest Jlall]

100 % no.

 

Seriously you didnt even bid game. One hand showed a minimum opener and one hand showed an invite without a big fit. How can it be possible to need a bid that will facilitate whether or not you should bid FIVE spades. And RHO is showing the deck, I don't see any reason not to believe him.

[inquiry]

Absolutely, totally, not... On what grounds would we ever consider this a forcing pass?

[pclayton]

Not even close.

[mikeh]

NOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

not even close. while different pairs wil have different rules for fp situations, one very common and useful rule is that fp does not apply beyond the level to which we have forced ourselves.

 

If we have forced ourselves to the 4-level, then a pass of a lower call by an opp is forcing.

 

Another common rule is that if we have voluntarily bid game to make, the opps can't play beyond our game undoubled: this rule does lead to -850 on occasion, but is otherwise sound.

 

Here, we have not forced ourselves anywhere: we didn't even force ourselves to the 3 level: our 3♠ was a competitive move, and carried no invitational connotations at all, since opener had already declined an invitational 2N.

 

And we certainly did not force ourselves to game. So neither of the above rules, nor any other I know, would remotely suggest that this is a fp situation. I just hope we can beat it.

[whereagles]

If you play the Robson/Segal forcing pass rules, this is forcing.

 

Why? Because any "invitational or better bid creates a forcing pass if opps bid to the FIVE level." In this case, the inv or better bid was 2NT.

[P_Marlowe]

I voted yes, but of course, it depends on agreement.

If you play sound openings, ... which 2/1 implies,

than I cant imagine, to let them play 5C with an penalty

double, I have opened, partner has a 10-12 bal. hand.

 

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hatchett]

Not forcing for me.

[mikeh]

I voted yes, but of course, it depends on agreement.

If you play sound openings, ... which 2/1 implies,

than I cant imagine, to let them play 5C with an penalty

double, I have opened, partner has a 10-12 bal. hand.

 

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

But this does not address the issue. Under the constraints of the auction, you may well conclude that one of you should be doubling, and perhaps one of you has the hand with which to do it: but, and this is a major but, is there anything about this auction that suggests that a pass invites partner to actually bid something?

 

In my view, absolutely not. Opener passed 2N, so he has no interest in any other suit nor in 5♠. Responder bid an invitational 2N, so he isn't interested in bidding 5♠ nor in venturing into a new suit at the 5-level.

 

A forcing pass is used to 'force' partner to choose between doubling and bidding something. Here, neither partner can logically have anything to bid, so the fp doesn't exist.

 

I agree that it is hard to construct hands on which ew can make 5♣, but that is not the point. The fact that the sequence is NOT a forcing pass doesn't bar either N or S from doubling B)

[Apollo81]

The auction (2/1 GF), we're Vulnerable, opponents are NV:

1♠ - pass - 1NT! - Dbl

2♠ - pass - 2NT - Dbl

pass - 3♣ - 3♠ - 5♣

pass? - pass - ...

As Justin said, your side can't be bidding 5♠ here, so there is no need for a forcing pass.

[sathyab]

When I first read it I thought the question was really for the other side. If someone were to bid 5s, should a pass over that be forcing ? I'd say for sure B)

[cherdano]

If you play the Robson/Segal forcing pass rules, this is forcing.

 

Why? Because any "invitational or better bid creates a forcing pass if opps bid to the FIVE level." In this case, the inv or better bid was 2NT.

I guarantee you that Robson/Segal play this pass as non-forcing. It's even clear from the rule you quote, 2N is "invite", not "invite or better".

Btw, not only are we lacking the strength to play a forcing pass, it also seems pretty useless as both hands are pretty well-defined.

[whereagles]

I guarantee you that Robson/Segal play this pass as non-forcing. It's even clear from the rule you quote, 2N is "invite", not "invite or better".

That depends a bit on how you interpret the rule (for instance, you may require exactly "inv or better", or you may agree that it only applies to fit auctions, etc.).

 

In any case I do agree this situation isn't logically a forcing pass one, but if you take an interpretation of Robson/Segal by which this IS a forcing pass situation, then I think you should treat it as so.

[jikl]

If opener had bid anything apart from pass at their 3rd bid, 100% forcing. In this example, 100% non-forcing.

 

Sean

[Gerben42]

It's non-forcing since we are not invitational OR BETTER. We invited and that was it.

[Al_U_Card]

Both hands have been described and despite the vulnerability, you have not shown the values for game (invitation, yes, but a minimum opener with 6S opposite 10-11 with a stiff spade honor is not enough for game). His pass says he has nothing more than promised and likely nothing much in clubs.....

[inquiry]

Justin got it right for the right reason. Here is the major issue.

 

A forcing pass ask partner to choose the most profitable bid (but not pass) when the opponents compete in our auction. This is either to bid on to a higher contract for us, or to double them. That is, the last hand to bid must either DOUBLE or bid one more for the road.

 

On this hand, as noted by many people above, it is not logical that opener could be harboring any thoughts of responder bidding 5♠. That is simply not a logical choice ever on this auction. Since opener can not be inviting responder to bid on, PASS CAN NOT BE FORCING. Use whatever rules you want to define this situation, but there it is. And, opener knows his partner has a balanced hand, poor spade fit, and approximate hcp range, and didn't double. This means responder needs sure defensive quick tricks to double.

 

It is likely, but certainly not manditory, for responder to double. And for goodness sake, Responder better not take this as a forcnig pass and pull to 5♠ based upon an offensive "balanced" hand.

[neilkaz]

This really doesn't look like a forcing pass to me, but rather a pass that isn't sure whether 5♣ makes.

[dake50]

Even if 1nt F1 handles ALL balanced hands to free up 2/1 for 5-suits, partners 2NT limited his hand. You are captain --make your best guess.

[temp3600]

I disagree with several posts in this thread.

 

First, about the Robson & Segal rule, "any invitational or better bid creates a forcing pass if opps bid to the FIVE level", I really think it is meant as "any (invitational) OR (better)", rather than "any (invitational or better)". The latter seems way too specific, while the former makes a lot of sense : if we have an opening hand facing an (invitational) OR (better) hand, we are not letting them play at the 5 level undoubled.

 

Which brings me to the forcing pass. I think that the situation here is a little strange, in that it IS a forcing pass, according to the rule, but one of our choices - we bid on - has been made impossible by our previous bids. So, since we cannot let them play undoubled at the 5 level, we are left with the only choice to double them.

[inquiry]

I disagree with several posts in this thread.

 

First, about the Robson & Segal rule, "any invitational or better bid creates a forcing pass if opps bid to the FIVE level", I really think it is meant as "any (invitational) OR (better)", rather than "any (invitational or better)". The latter seems way too specific, while the former makes a lot of sense : if we have an opening hand facing an (invitational) OR (better) hand, we are not letting them play at the 5 level undoubled.

 

Which brings me to the forcing pass. I think that the situation here is a little strange, in that it IS a forcing pass, according to the rule, but one of our choices - we bid on - has been made impossible by our previous bids. So, since we cannot let them play undoubled at the 5 level, we are left with the only choice to double them.

Ahmmm....

 

What lets break this down. First, Robson and Segal already defined game forcing hands establish a forcing pass situation (but not if a direct raise, as that could be preemptive). Within that context (game forcing establishing a forcing pass situation), what and the "better" in "invitational or better" mean. If it is better than invitational, wouldn't that be game forcing? And if that is true, how can "invitational or better" mean "invitational or game forcing" since the earlier condition already applied.

 

No, they meant exactly what they suggested, the bid was "invitational or better". The example would be...

 

1H-(2C)-2NT-(5C)

 

where 2NT was limit raise or better. A pass by opener would express uncertainty about rather to defend 5C or bid 5H. In fact ths is a precise auction they give on page 46 and describe 2NT as "showed a limit raise or better with four (plus) hearts" and a pass of 5♣ would be forcing. Interestingly, similar auction show at the same time was 1H-(1S)-2NT-4S and pass of 4♠ would NOT BE forcing despite 2NT being limit raise or better.

 

And in this example, if your agreement is they have to play 5♣ doubled on your auction, what reason was there for opener to pass? I mean, under your rules it simply has to be played doubled, why pass, just double and be done with it. Pass has to be a poor opening hand with probably only one sure defensive trick at most. With two, clearly double would have occurred.

 

Finally for the record, here are Robson/Segal rules from page 46 of their excellent book.. read option 4 carefully and not their quote marks.

 

(1) A natural raise to any level NEVER sets up a forcing pass.

 

(2) A fit-jump or splinter-jump only sets up a forcing pass if you are at ‘red’ and are raising to the four level

(or higher)

 

(3) A cue-bid in the opponents’ suit showing a high-card raise sets up a forcing pass if you are raising to the

four level.

 

(4) A bid showing ‘limit or better’ values creates a forcing pass if and only if opponents bid to the five level (or

higher).

 

LIMIT or BETTER means a bid that is at worse a limit invite, but can be stronger. So play this pass as forcing if you want (it really DOES NOT make bridge sense to do so) but don't say you have support from Robson/Segal for your view.

[temp3600]

Let me quote this sentence, p. 47, that follows the 1♥ (2♣) 2NT (5♣) [1] example : "Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction [1] to set up a forcing pass". If you agree with this premise, how many defensive tricks do you think an opening bid facing an 11-12 HCP balanced hand will take? And the follow-up question : do you want to let the opponents play 5♣ undoubled?

 

I firmly believe that if you adhere to Robson & Segal's view, you cannot let the opponents play 5♣ undoubled in the given auction. And since you clearly do not want to play at the 5 level, then you have to double them. So yes, declarer should have doubled, made a mistake by passing, and after his pass, responder has to double.

 

I'll agree that I was wrong about point (4) above. I reread the passage and it is meant as 'limit raise or better', not the meaning I suggested.

[inquiry]

I'll agree that I was wrong about point (4) above. I reread the passage and it is meant as 'limit raise or better', not the meaning I suggested.

 

Ok we are getting halfway home... let's look at the sentence you quoted from page 47....

 

[1] example : "Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction [1] to set up a forcing pass".

 

You conviently left off the first opart of the sentence, the full passage reads....

"2NT showed a limit raise or better with four (plus) hearts. Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction (1) to set up a forcing pass"

 

So this double falls firmly within their rule #4, Limit raise or better. Also note another difference here South didn't GET A CHANCE to express an opinion about rather to bid 4♥ or not. North showed a "relatively balanced" limit raise or better and the next hand bid 5♣. This is quite different from our auction here. First, the degree of fit in this thread is uncertain (probably 6-2). Second, both partners have greatly limited their hands (forcing 1NT, 2S rebid, 2NT rebid). The situations are not the same at all. On the Limit raise or better hand (their example 1.), a nine card fit in hearts is assured, 2.) bidding on to 5♥ is a possibility, and 3.) responder is still unlimited by their own definition.

 

I encourage you to take another look at the two auctions (their #1 and the one in this thread again, and to look at meaning of their 2NT (limit raise or better with four card --plus-- support) versus 2NT in this auction (balanced 10-12, no 3 card spade fit) and determine why they would play pass of 5♣ as forcing in their case, but never, ever in this one.

 

The premise over rahter or not they can make 5♣ is a different issue. I suspect 5♣ will be doubled 90% of the time or higher. Openers pass simply says one thing, his hand is not very defensive... but it is not a forcing pass, it is not inviting 5♠ bid, and responder can adhere to any decision about tricks he likes. But with the realization that the pass by opener clearly denied three defensive tricks and probably two certain ones. The fact that your bridge logic makes it unlikely they should be allowed to play 5 level on auctions like this is fine. But that does not turn pass into a forcing pass.

[temp3600]

You conviently left off the first opart of the sentence, the full passage reads....

"2NT showed a limit raise or better with four (plus) hearts. Now, an opening bid facing a fairly balanced limit raise rates to be worth three defensive tricks a sufficiently huge percentage of the time to make it sensible for auction (1) to set up a forcing pass"

You are being dishonest by suggesting that I "conveniently" didn't mention the first sentence. Your first reply already had that bit.

"The example would be...

 

1H-(2C)-2NT-(5C)

 

where 2NT was limit raise or better", I continued quoting from there.

 

***

 

Example [1] and the current auction are different, but you don't seem to understand that in the case we have here responder is as strong if not stronger and has a more defensive hand than a subset of responder hands from point (4) where the partnership would end up defending 5♣X. I explain. In example [1], after (5♣), if opener passes, responder with a balanced, defensively-oriented limit raise will double, and opener will leave it (unless he was making a slam try obviously). Here, responder has shown a balanced 11-12HCP hand, so is at least as strong or stronger than the possible balanced limit-raise from [1]. Also, he likely has 2 spades, which means a worse fit than in [1], and increased defensive prospects.

So, if an ordinary opener and a balanced limit-raise are comitting to 5♣X by application of point (4) in example [1], in the current situation, the partnership is even more willing to play 5♣X.

 

So, if the partnership agreed to play point (4), declarer, over 5♣, knowing his partner has a balanced, semi-misfitted 11-12 count, should double. If for some reason he didn't, responder should double.

[inquiry]

ok.. i will try one last time. Let's try using a definition. Can we agree on this very simple definition for a forcing pass (taken from bridgeworld glossery)

forcing pass - a pass that requests that partner take some action and not allow the opponents to secure the contract (undoubled) at their present bid.

 

Assuming we can agree on this definition, what does the pass over 5♣ show on the auction in this thread? Is it a request for for partner to take some action (bid or double)? By your own analysis, you stated...

 

I think that the situation here is a little strange, in that it IS a forcing pass, according to the rule, but one of our choices - we bid on - has been made impossible by our previous bids.

 

So the pass is NOT asking responder to bid on. The best you can do to describe openers pass as "a mistake" (note, not a forcing pass, but rather a mistake) where you said...

 

So yes, declarer should have doubled, made a mistake by passing, and after his pass, responder has to double

 

So what you are describing is not an forcing pass agreement, but a bridge logic issue where opening hand opposite a balanced non-fitting game invite hand will double them if they bid to some level (in this case five level). This is certainly a fair agreement, but it does not fall under the definition of a "forcing pass". Why, is there is no implication that responder is encouraged in the slightest to bid on. So whatever pass is, it is not a forcing pass. And if your agreement (implicit or explicit) is to always double them in this situation still would not turn the initial pass into a forcing pass. It could be, as you state, "a mistake" where opener should have doubled, or it could have been a warning (as I suggest) that opener does not have the minimum number of expected defensive tricks.

 

But there is a difference between a bridge logic that we will punish them for bidding over our game try/non-fit auctions and a forcing pass. Even if you agree that they can not play such bids undoubled, that does not turn the pass into a "forcing pass" which invites partner to double or bid. I think that is what I am trying to express here.

 

But I give up now, accept or reject this characterization, i am certain I have nothing else to add on this subject.