Forcing Pass situation

[joker_gib]

Hi all :unsure: ,

 

During the Bermuda Bowl,in forcing pass situations, I saw some partnerships playing the reverse of what's commonly played (pass encouraging and dbl discouraging).

 

They play dbl encouraging and pass discouraging.

 

Could some of you tell me if there are some advantages in bidding this way.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Alain

[inquiry]

There are forcing passes, and then their are other forcing passes. For instance, assume you play a jump to 3♦ over a major as limit raise (aka bergen). You are essentially forced to three of your partner's major (you have announced fit and values for 9 tricks). Now the bidding is...

 

Auction 1

1♠-P-3♦-3♥

Pass

 

Auction 2

1♠-P-3♦-3♥

3♠

 

Auction 3

1♠-P-3♦-3♥

DBL

 

You have to decide what each of these bids mean. I suggest that only option 2 is what you would classify as weak. Opener has no interest in anything other than 3♠. I would suggest to you that option 3 suggest an optional double. Opener has a hand that is suitable for defense. I realize that some people play this double (with no extra space) as sort of a maximal double inviting partner to bid 4♠. I prefer to play the pass to show this. I do not ever expect the bidding to go 3♥-P-P-P because my pass is FORCING. It shows either much better than normal (if I pull a double by partner, it is a slam try, or if partner "corrects" to 3♠ and I bid again it is slam try). Since my pass shows extra, I would expect partner with better than miniumum to either cue-bid a minor or jump to 4♠ or double 3♥ with a defensive hand. So here, my pass shows extra values. Note, many people play that if there is no room to invite go with max (as is the case on this auction) then dbl is the invite hand, but if there is room then the "Free suit" does the same... thus for these guys, 1♠-(P)-3♣(bergen)-(3♦)-DBL would be penalty, and 3(♥) wouldn't mean I have ♥s too, but rather be lonely cue-bid game try in ♠. There is nothing wrong with this style, but for me, I would pass over 3♦ to invite game, and bid 3♠ to stop, and if I bid 3♥, gasp, I have ♥s too.

 

Now lets look at another situation. We have shown game forcing values and they have taken a sacrafice over our bid.

 

1♥-P-2NT-4♠ 2NT=jacoby, GF and ♥ fit

option A = pass

option B = Dbl

option C = 5♥ (or other)

Option D = 5 minor

 

Option A, pass invites partner to double or bid on, at his choicing. If I am minimum, I will double, as if I am stacked in ♠. To pass with a minimum hand risk partner bidding again and getting too high. And remember if I pass and then pull partner's 4♠ double I am inviting slam and showing a ♠ control.

 

Option C. If I will not stand for 4♠x by partner because I am weak, I will bid 5♥. So both double and 5♥ are weak bids, but 5♥ shows an offensive hand.

 

Option B. When I don't want to invite slam or bid 5♥ myself, I will double. This double is not a demand bid forcing my partner to pass. But it does convey that I 1) have no slam interest (else I pass), and 2) I do not have a weakish hand that is all offense, else I bid 5♥.

 

Option D, btw, denies a control in ♠, but does show slam interest. With a ♠ control, I would pass and then pull the double with a cue-bid.

[luis]

There are forcing passes, and then their are other forcing passes. For instance, assume you play a jump to 3♦ over a major as limit raise (aka bergen). You are essentially forced to three of your partner's major (you have announced fit and values for 9 tricks). Now the bidding is...

 

Auction 1

1♠-P-3♦-3♥

Pass

 

Auction 2

1♠-P-3♦-3♥

3♠

 

Auction 3

1♠-P-3♦-3♥

DBL

 

You have to decide what each of these bids mean. I suggest that only option 2 is what you would classify as weak. Opener has no interest in anything other than 3♠. I would suggest to you that option 3 suggest an optional double. Opener has a hand that is suitable for defense. I realize that some people play this double (with no extra space) as sort of a maximal double inviting partner to bid 4♠. I prefer to play the pass to show this. I do not ever expect the bidding to go 3♥-P-P-P because my pass is FORCING. It shows either much better than normal (if I pull a double by partner, it is a slam try, or if partner "corrects" to 3♠ and I bid again it is slam try). Since my pass shows extra, I would expect partner with better than miniumum to either cue-bid a minor or jump to 4♠ or double 3♥ with a defensive hand. So here, my pass shows extra values. Note, many people play that if there is no room to invite go with max (as is the case on this auction) then dbl is the invite hand, but if there is room then the "Free suit" does the same... thus for these guys, 1♠-(P)-3♣(bergen)-(3♦)-DBL would be penalty, and 3(♥) wouldn't mean I have ♥s too, but rather be lonely cue-bid game try in ♠. There is nothing wrong with this style, but for me, I would pass over 3♦ to invite game, and bid 3♠ to stop, and if I bid 3♥, gasp, I have ♥s too.

 

Now lets look at another situation. We have shown game forcing values and they have taken a sacrafice over our bid.

 

1♥-P-2NT-4♠ 2NT=jacoby, GF and ♥ fit

option A = pass

option B = Dbl

option C = 5♥ (or other)

Option D = 5 minor

 

Option A, pass invites partner to double or bid on, at his choicing. If I am minimum, I will double, as if I am stacked in ♠. To pass with a minimum hand risk partner bidding again and getting too high. And remember if I pass and then pull partner's 4♠ double I am inviting slam and showing a ♠ control.

 

Option C. If I will not stand for 4♠x by partner because I am weak, I will bid 5♥. So both double and 5♥ are weak bids, but 5♥ shows an offensive hand.

 

Option B. When I don't want to invite slam or bid 5♥ myself, I will double. This double is not a demand bid forcing my partner to pass. But it does convey that I 1) have no slam interest (else I pass), and 2) I do not have a weakish hand that is all offense, else I bid 5♥.

 

Option D, btw, denies a control in ♠, but does show slam interest. With a ♠ control, I would pass and then pull the double with a cue-bid.

After reading your post I'm still in doubt about your opinion on the question that started the thread: what are the merits or problems of playing a pass as discoraging and dbl as encouraging when a forcing pass situation arises?

 

 

In your auction

 

1h-pass-2N-4s

 

Opener can encourage pd to bid or discourage him to bid, the usual treatment is to play dbl as discouraging (I want to defend 4sx) and pass as encouraging/doubt.

Is there any difference if you play a pass as discouraging (pd I suggest you to dbl) and dbl as encouraging (pls bid on) ?

[joker_gib]

As I'm new on the forum, let me first thank you all for your quick responses :unsure: but the question is exactly the one that Luis remains in his post.

 

What is better :

dbl=discouraging and pass encouraging

or

pass=discouraging and dbl=encouraging ?

[inquiry]

As I'm new on the forum, let me first thank you all for your quick responses  :rolleyes: but the question is exactly the one that Luis remains in his post.

 

What is better :

dbl=discouraging and pass encouraging

or

pass=discouraging and dbl=encouraging ?

Hi,

 

These answers are of course for me, I know that different people have different agreements.

 

Let me handle the simpliest forcing pass situation first. You bid game, they have taken a sacacfice. Here DBL is discouraging you to bid on. Pass is either encouraging or REALLY encouraging. You separate betweent these two with the next bid.. .for instance...

 

1♥-P-2NT-3♠

4♥-4♠-P-P

dBL-P-?

 

If 2NT bidder now bids over the double, his pass not only encouraged going on, it strongly slam invite. Here a pass by the 2NT bidder should alway welcome a 5♥ bid, so if 2NT bidder is generally balanced, a few losing ♠s, and nice defensive cards in the side suits, he should have doubled... So here, DBL is discouraging (double always suggest defending in my book)... The one think the 2NT bidder should not have is a weak hand (for the bidding) where if partner doubles he is going to bid 5♥... as that has to be a slam try.... i

 

Where the problem exist, I think, in the question is if you are in a game forcing situation or not and if a "maximal double" is an option. The maximal double inviting game is the one I gave earlier... lets take the simplies version of this double...

 

1♥-(P)-2♥-(3♦)

?

 

Here, opener can bid 3♥ but is this just competing (LOTT thing) or is this an invite if responder is on maximum of his 2♥ bid. Of course this is not a forcing pass situation, but many, many pro's play dble here by opener as inviting 4♥ and 3♥ simply to play. This brings up the somewhat analagous auction mentioned earlier....(I play this double).

 

1♥-(P)-3♣-(3♦)

?

 

Where 3♣ was bergen raise. Here, if 3♥ is to play, how do you invite game with no room between 3♦ and 3♥? Again, many of the same players who use the double in the 1♥-2♥ auction above play the double here to invite and pass and 3♥ as weak and weaker. My view is quite different. Here, I use PASS by opener to invite 4♥ or partner to double (with a good defensive hand (ODR) for the auction to date). I use my own double as optional--and obviously extra values, partner can pull, based upon his cards (especially with singleton ♦). But since I was forced to 3♥ if EAST passed, my auction is still forced to 3♥ once EAST bid 3♦. Note if EAST had overcalled 3♠, we are no longer in a forcnig pass situation, if I pass 3♠, the auction can and probably will end there.

 

Don't know if this helps, but between the three long post, I have exhausted my views on this unless someone wants to make a table of forcing pass situations and discuss the meaning of pass/double in each. Perhaps others can share their views as I know way is certainly not the only way to play these. BTW, if you haven't read robson/Segal views on forcing pass and establishing forcing pass situations, you owe it to yourself to do so. Their notes can be found at (look for Robson/Segal notes on this page..use find)...

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/

Ben

[luis]

Hi all :rolleyes: ,

 

During the Bermuda Bowl,in forcing pass situations, I saw some partnerships playing the reverse of what's commonly played (pass encouraging and dbl discouraging).

 

They play dbl encouraging and pass discouraging.

 

Could some of you tell me if there are some advantages in bidding this way.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Alain

My vision:

I think that this reverse is used to minimize the risk when there is doubt on whether a forcing pass situation was stablished or not.

If your pass is discouraging and pd forgets or the situation is not clear then at least you will let them play in a hand where your had a discouraging holding.

[inquiry]

My vision:

I think that this reverse is used to minimize the risk when there is doubt on whether a forcing pass situation was stablished or not.

If your pass is discouraging and pd forgets or the situation is not clear then at least you will let them play in a hand where your had a discouraging holding.

Wow... A convention for when you forget your convention. :rolleyes: This is an EXTREMELY silly way to play bridge, to alter the normal meaning of a perfectly good bid. What do you have for when you forget jacoby? you wait until you have both the suit you are transferring into and the other suit? I am certain that no one playing in the Bermuda Bowl was playing it this reversed way to "lessen" the problem when a forcing pass was forgotten. For one thing, that would mean you could never pass with a really good hand, since you are afraid your parnter will "forget" that it is forcing. For another, if I held a monster hand and wanted to make a slam try when forcing pass was available, the last thing I would want to do on this auction

 

1♠-(3♥)-4♥-(5♥)

?

 

is to have to DOUBLE or bid 5 of major to invite slam.. forcing pass and then 5♠ to invite seems just right.

 

I would like a pointer to a few hands where double were encouraging in forcing pass situation and pass totally discouraging. I didn't see all the hands from the bermuda bowl, but I did see a few of the "maximal" double situation I point out above a few times. This I think is quite different from the double/pass options over an obvious sacrafice. And a further note, some of the auctions where it might look like a forcing pass situation may in fact not have been forcing pass. Since agreeeing on Robson/Segal style fit jumps and other raises, some auctions that I use to play as forcing (where for instance we got to 4♥ and they bid on, even to the 5 level) are no longer forcing...especially if we are not vul. So now, pass might be just that... I have bid what I have and nothing more, and double is, I have extra value (remember if this is not a forcing pass situation, there is a clear distinction between pass and double).

 

Ben

[luis]

Ben, ben, ben I'm not saying this is a convention prepared to forget the convention I'm saying that since the meaning of double/pass can be exchanged without disadvantages then it may be wise to use them in the order in which in case of an accident you are best protected.

 

I remember a Zonal championship where a pair was playing full Romex over 2NT, with 3s as a puppet to 3N and 3N to show a hand with both minors. They agreed to play that 4N after 3N-4x was "I forgot the convention and bid 3N to play" and it showed up not once but twice in the tournament! :-)

I know the game is at it best when you and your pd remember everything and never have a missunderstanding but I kind of symphaty with pairs that prepare for accidents and try to minimize the adverse effects.

[inquiry]

Luis,

 

I would like to suggest that that 2NT-3NT-4x-4NT is better used as quantatitve slam try with minor two suiter than as an "oh my god, I use this because I can't remember what the heck my bids mean". I guess you could agree to play all 4NT bids forget the rest of the auction, I screwed up and want to play NT if you like, but somehow, I suspect a pair that has to have this kind of I forgot what we are doing is not a good example of how we should try to teach people to bid. Nor is the fact that a pair has a "I forgot what I am doing bid" a convincing argument as to way the bidding should go. Maybe moscito players may have a leap to 4NT in the middle of a relay auction as "I have got lost, let me out... " I knew one relay precision pair with a similar agreement...but maybe then they are playing the wrong system.

 

But let's move beyond the concept of forgetting what a pass means in a forcing pass situation as a defense for pass being exclusively non-encouraging and double as encouraging. Instead, let's consider this as an absolute premise, does reverse the meaning of these two bids really have merit (I know you have not suggested this is how you play forcing pass, btw, only it proposed it as a strawman so far to explain how it might be played)?

 

Within this context, lets consider the auction I gave earlier..

 

1♠-(3♥)-4♥-(5♥)

? ?

 

Now within this context, pass being "weak" or minimum, and double being extra's. What is,

• An immediate 5♠ bid?
  
• Pass followed by 5♠
  
• What if you have a good defensive hand, and poor offensive hand, what do you bid?
  
• What if you have a good offensive hand, but poor defensive hand, what do you bid?
  
• Pass followed by raising 5♠ to 6♠?
  
• Dbl followed by raising 5♠ to 6♠
  
• dlb followed by no chance to bid again?
  

I hope to show by this example the pass with bad hands, can't cover everything. If you double with a great offensive hand wanting to invite 6♠, then you may end up playing 5♥X instead of 6♠. If you double with a extra values but a defensive hand, you may end up playing 5♠ - maybe doubled yourself. If you bid 5♠ as an invite to slam directly, you have not clarified the presences or absences of a ♥ stopper. If you pass with all weak hands, and your partner reopens with a double, he is doing so without a clear view if you hand offense to defense ratio is slanted towards offense (since you had to pass) or defense, or either. If he doubles and you are weak but offensive, it might be right to bid on, or it might be right to pass. Remember, your PASS didn't convey uncertainty about rather to defend or play offense, just that you lacked the "encouraging values' (whatever that is) for a nebulous double.

 

Now imagine a true forcing pass situation. Here, a double by you would suggest that for the bidding to date, as opener, your hand is better suited for defense than offense. Of course this is not a demand that your partner pass. If instead you bid 5♠ your partner knows that you have an offensive hand, but no slam interest (or at least, no ♥ control). If you pass the decision to partner, he is allowed to look at his hand and decide how to proceed (pass of course is not an option). With an offensive hand, he can bid 5♠.. and if you had a slam try hand and a ♥ control, you freely bid 6♠. If he has a defensive hand or a neutral (average defense, average offense), he doubles. Now if you truely had the yucky hand that you could not decide what to do, you pass and play defense. If on the other hand, you had the slam try hand, you bid only 5♠. Now your partner can reevalaute again, and decide on 5 or 5♠.

 

So while using dbl to show 'encouraging" values and pass to show discouraging values seems like a painless swap of the meaning of the forcing pass versus the double, it really is not. It will be very hard to make an intellegent decision at high levels when you bid like this, at least imho. This is way too high a price to give up, even to cover times where you are afraid your partner will forget it is a forcing pass situation.

 

Ben

[mishovnbg]

.................................................Hi Alain!...........................................

...Welcome to forum! If different opinions doesn't exist will be no progress at all :P.

...The clear answer to your question is: forcing pass as encouraging is better, because it follow main rule of science bidding to keep level low with strength and leave more bidding space for investigation. For example, if you use X as encouraging you lose bid X from your partner, as well as possibility to continue after his X , with different meaninig of bids (fully agree with Ben meaning of such bids, aka trap pass-control). So, direct X as encouraging is not good.

...Less to remember and as more as possible simple bidding is one of keys of sucsessful partnership, here I agree with Luis. The problem is what is easy to remember and what is simple ;). Forcing pass and R/S style of bidding, what I play with Ben is very easy to remeber in my opinion, we play it all time and anywhere and already gather a lot of experience there - most important in my opinion. May be one of the most popular mistakes is that simple natural bidding is easy. It is not true and such opinion exist only because lack of knoledge and inability to see all problems. Truth is: you can use any convention, even complicate, but it must be happen often - in same case you will not forget it and will do less mistakes - key to better Bridge.

...About the side bids, if they are available in competition after fit. The meaning of your bids must be by priority of chances to win. In case of major fit, it is 4 major game, so if you don't have enough space for bidding, remaining bids must be oriented on it. But if you have other bids to show game interest, you can use them for other possible wining contracts, like penalty double and 3NT.

 

Examples in NF situation:

 

1♥-(2♣)-2♥-(3♣), ?

3♦: inv for 4♥, doesn't show ♦

X: values in ♣, passable

3♥: competitive bid, doesn't invite

 

1♠-(2♥)-2♠-(3♥), ?

3♠: competitive bid, doesn't invite

X: inv for 4♠, because this is most likely wining contract and X is only available bid.

 

Examples in forcing pass situation:

 

1♥-(2♣)-2NT:inv+,fit-(3♣), ?

Pass: inv for 4♥, values in ♠ or slam interest with control ♣

3♦: inv for 4♥, values in ♦

X: values in ♣, passable

3♥: competitive bid, doesn't invite

 

1♠-(2♥)-2NT:inv+,fit-(3♥), ?

Pass: inv for 4♠ or slam interest with control ♥

3♠: competitive bid, doesn't invite

X: values in ♥, passable

 

...Note: The only slight difference between me and Ben is usage of X as optional double, despite opps already find their fit, because I am not fanatic of LOTT B) .

................................................................................Misho

[the hog]

von Arnim - Auken invert the Pass-Dbl in GF situations

If opps bid past our game

P= asks for X, then new suit = multi playable & cue = void, slam try.

 

Dbl = flexible raise, can defend.

 

New suit = 1 suit only.

[joker_gib]

Hi Misho and all,

 

...The clear answer to your question is: forcing pass as encouraging is better, because it follow main rule of science bidding to keep level low with strength and leave more bidding space for investigation. For example, if you use X as encouraging you lose bid X from your partner, as well as possibility to continue after his X , with different meaninig of bids (fully agree with Ben meaning of such bids, aka trap pass-control). So, direct X as encouraging is not good.

 

I think that you answered my question ;)

 

Let me once thank you all for your quick and reliable replies !!

 

See you on BBO :P

[mishovnbg]

von Arnim - Auken invert the Pass-Dbl in GF situations

If opps bid past our game

P= asks for X, then new suit = multi playable & cue = void, slam try.

 

Dbl = flexible raise, can defend.

 

New suit = 1 suit only.

..........................................................Hi Ron!..................................................

...Disadvantage of same structure is when opps continue to bid, because unclear forcing pass - can be for penalty(weak hand) or for slam. In same case partner of "forcing passer" can't show his opinion about final contract - bad for partnership understanding. It is true he can bid like his partener double (weak hand) and can lose only when "forcing pass" was for slam try - rare variant, but still it is worse theoretically.

..................................................................Misho

[inquiry]

I agree with Misho's comments on the method Ron spoke of for von Arnim - Auken invert the Pass-Dbl in GF situations when opponents bid above game. The disadvantages he spoke of are fatal to the theory in general I believe (at least for me).

 

But I wonder if they play this in a specialized situation where althought they are forced to game, no fit has been found? Let's imagine the following hypothetical auction....

 

1♣*-(p)-1♥-4♠

?

 

Where 1♣ was artificial and forcing and 1♥ was maybe ♥s but game force. Here a forcing pass followed by 5♣ to show two playable places and an immediate 5♣ to suggest to play in ♣ might has some advantages. I don't know if it is enough however, because what I do with the two places to play is pass and then pull partners double to 4NT to get him to suggest a strain at the five level, or use 4NT immediately for this purpose. Also, this force partner to double doesn't allow partner the flexibility to describe his hand anymore... he has to double if I read this text right. You get a better description of the the hand that passes values but the other hand has been relegated to passive bystander.

 

In an earlier reply, misho suggest that while he agrees with me on forcing pass (good because we are frequent online partners), he noted: "The only slight difference between me and Ben is usage of X as optional double, despite opps already find their fit, because I am not fanatic of LOTT." If this confused you, it confused me also, because the example auctions he gave are all very similar to ones I gave and I agree with "sequences" on each of those. But it is true that I am more of an advocate of LOTT than he is... although I apply a variety of adjustment and of course try to rely on hand evaluation judgement as much as possible in adjusting this evalaution.

 

Ben

[the hog]

"Also, this force partner to double doesn't allow partner the flexibility to describe his hand anymore... he has to double if I read this text right. You get a better description of the the hand that passes values but the other hand has been relegated to passive bystander. "

 

I think you read it right. I got this from their system notes. I must admit it does not appeal to me either, but hey, they play far better than I do, so what do I know?

 

I guess the other point is that they have been a world class partnership for many years and have a good understanding of what they are doing in any case.

 

Ron

[mishovnbg]

.......................................................Hi Ron!.....................................................

...If all world class players know what they do, why then they don't play same system ;) ? To be serious, of course they know what they do! The most of wins of pair von Arnim - Auken is at MP tournaments. For MP bridge is more important to have nuances for decision to penalize or to continue, instead to searching for slam miracles.

...............................................................................Misho

[inquiry]

.......................................................Hi Ron!.....................................................

...If all world class players know what they do, why then they don't play same system :) ? To be serious, of course they know what they do! The most of wins of pair von Arnim - Auken is at MP tournaments. For MP bridge is more important to have nuances for decision to penalize or to continue, instead to searching for slam miracles.

...............................................................................Misho

It is even more than misho's if "all world classs players know" statement. In fact, I venture that the huge majority of world class players do not play forcing pass the same way that von Arnim - Auken do if this quoted method for them is correct. But this style probably suits them better for some reason that the other. In bridge there is no single best way to form your agreements... make the ones that fit best for you.

 

ben