forcing pass rule

[han]

What do you think, would it be a good idea to play forcing passes in any auction like this:

 

(pass)-pass or bid - (preempt) - forcing or game bid

(bid above game-level)-??

 

some examples:

 

(p) - 1C - (2H)- 2S

(5H)-??

 

(p)- p - (2H) - 4C (clubs and spades, forcing)

(5H) - ??

 

(p) - 1S - (3H) - 4S

(5H) - ??

[pclayton]

All are forcing. One of the rules around here is that a passed hand raise by the opps of a preempt creates a force.

[bid_em_up]

All are forcing. One of the rules around here is that a passed hand raise by the opps of a preempt creates a force.

edit: In auctions two/three, this makes sense, as your side is known to hold values and have not totally limited your hands, while their side consists of a preemptor and a passed hand.

 

In auction one, imo, pass is non-committal, but it should also imply spade tolerance (2 or 3). You would double with spade stiff or void, and bid 5♠ with 4 spades. However, I would not expect partner to let them play 5H undoubled if I pass, since we have two unlimited hands in this auction, so in that since, yes it is forcing.

[mikeh]

Auction 2 is forcing: we have committed to game and it is (I think) anti-percentage to permit pass to be non-forcing.

 

Auction 1 depends on your agreements as to 2♠. i am aware, from previous threads, tnat I am in a small minority in playing 2♠ as either gf (in some partnerships) or near gf (in others). If 2♠ creates a force only as high as 3♠ (or lower: ie does it even promise a rebid?), then it is logical to say that this is not a fp situation: certainly, for most, had the opp bid 4♥, pass would not be forcing in theory, altho the pass-out will be rare in practice. Should LHO's choice of 5♥ make it forcing, when 4♥ would not? I don't think so, but I can see the logic behind it: usually 5♥ is bid by a player who fears that you can make 11-12 tricks.

 

Auction 3: the logic of the situation depends on what meaning we ascribe to 4♠. This is a wide-range action, since we have to commit to game with distributional hands with not much defence as well as good limit-raise to minimum opening hands.. we have only 3♠ (which could be stretched) or 4♥ as our below-game raises. While an argument can be made that the light shapely hand option should prevent this being a fp scenario, I think that on a frequency of utility basis, the pass should be forcing: if the 4♠ raise is itiself preemptive or semi-preemptive, then this may be a double game swing hand anyway, so we are not going to want to pass very often... while if the 4♠ bid is on relatively flat and decent hcp values, we probably want to be doubling.

[whereagles]

Well.. in Robson/Segal context we have:

 

1. RS define "any inv+ raise sets a forcing pass if opps bid to the FIVE level". I think it makes sense to replace 'raise' for 'bid', so this one shd be forcing.

 

2. You have been forced to 4♠ or 5♣. Since opps bid above that, it's not forcing.

 

3. No direct raise ever sets a forcing pass.

[skjaeran]

Well.. in Robson/Segal context we have:

 

1. RS define "any inv+ raise sets a forcing pass if opps bid to the FIVE level". I think it makes sense to replace 'raise' for 'bid', so this one shd be forcing.

 

2. You have been forced to 4♠ or 5♣. Since opps bid above that, it's not forcing.

 

3. No direct raise ever sets a forcing pass.

 

Fully agree.