forcing pass - absolute DBLs

[kgr]

A good player advised me to play absolute DBL's (not 100% this is the name) in a forcing pass situation: DBL invites partner to bid one more and pass invites partner to DBL.

He considers this as one of the best tools of their system. What is the advantage of this compared to more normal bids (DBL shows no desire to go higher and pass inviting to bid more)?

[awm]

I think the main advantage is in "pass and pull" type situations. You are supposed to pass and then pull partner's double with certain (slam try) type hands. The issue is that, in standard forcing pass methods:

 

Dbl = "I think we should defend, you can pull if you hate defending"

Pass = "I think we should bid on, but you can dbl if you want"

Bid on = "I think we should bid on, and it doesn't matter what you say"

 

Because of this, when you pass (forcing) you are suggesting to bid on. Partner will often bid on rather than doubling. This leaves the slam try hand in doubt about what to do; you cannot "show that you had the slam try" anymore except by bidding slam and trying to make it.

 

In the inverted methods:

 

Dbl = "I think we should bid on, but you can pass if you want"

Pass = "I think we should defend, but you can bid if you hate defending"

Bid on = "I think we should bid on, and it doesn't matter what you say"

 

Here if you pass you are suggesting to double. Partner will almost always double. This allows you to show the slam try by bidding on after the double.

[Finch]

He considers this as one of the best tools of their system.

This is an overbid.

 

I think awm is probably right about the advantages. But bear in mind that

 

1. In the majority of FP auctions the real issue is judgement i.e. whether the hand is worth a bid, a pass or a double. It is only on a very small number of hands that this method will actually give you an advantage.

 

2. You have to be more certain about your forcing pass agreements. Playing 'normal' methods, if you aren't certain that pass is forcing you can still double if you want to defend and bid if you want to bid. However, if you play this inverted method, then double changes its meaning depending on whether pass is forcing or not. The potential for expensive accidents is much higher.

 

I don't play this method for these reasons. If I were a full-time player in one serious partnership, it is something I would consider changing to.

[benlessard]

Lets do an abstract experiment. You (A) have a hand between 1 (weakest) & 6 (strongest) and same for partner (B,1-6). opps are competing at 5C and you have diamonds (so no possible slam try in a new suit). With total combined of 2-5 you want to play 5Cx. With 5-6-7-8 you want to play 5D and with 9-12 you want to play 6D.

 

RHO just bid 5C and now its your turn...

 

standard FP = you X with 12 and pass with 34 and bid 5D with 56

 

method 2 = you X with 34 and pass with 126 and bid 5D with 5.

with method 2 you pass and pull after partner X to show 6. If partner manage to bid 5D and you have the hand with strenght 6 then you can easily bid 6D.

 

Having 4 strenght group (12,34,5,6) instead of 3 (12,34,56) is a small edge that you get by playing methot 2. With no misunderstanding there is no downside for playing method 2.

 

If you have a new suit available (you have H so over 5C you can bid 5D to show a slam try). I suggest fast= weak slow=strong.

 

X with 34 (partner can bid 5D to invite & you are going to accept with 4)

bid 5H with 5

pass with 1267. (partner can bid 5D to invite to check if you have 2 or 1) if he bid 5D or 5H and you have 56 you will bid slam. and if he X then

pass & pull to 5H = 6

pass & pull to 5D = 7

[awm]

In "standard" forcing pass you also pass and pull with the most slammish hands. So I don't think Benlessard's example is right.

 

I'd put it more this way. Each hand has an offensive value of 0, 1, or 2 and a defensive value of 0, 1, or 2. You need a total offense of 2 to make 5♦ and 4 to make 6♦. You need a total defense of 1 to beat 5♣, and a defense of 3 to beat 5♣ more than the value of making 5♦. So standard forcing pass is something like:

 

Double: Defense > Offense

Pass: Offense = Defense or Offense = 2

Bid: Offense = 1 and Defense = 0

 

Partner now:

 

Leaves double in unless he has offense=2.

If you pass, partner doubles if defense >= offense and bids if offense > defense.

 

If you pass and partner doubles, and you have offense=2, then you bid 5♦ as a slam try. Partner will know that if he has offense=defense=2 for his double, then he should bid 6♦. The problem is if partner bids over your pass when you have offense=2. Now you want to bid six if partner has offense=2 also, but pass if partner had offense=1 and defense=0. You can't tell so you're just on a guess.

 

In the inverted method:

 

Double: Offense = Defense

Pass: Defense > Offense or Offense=2

Bid: Offense=1 and Defense=0

 

Partner now:

 

Leaves double in only if defense >= offense.

Doubles when you pass unless offense=2 and defense <=1 (in which case he bids).

 

The point is that if you have the slam try (offense=2) hand, then if partner bids over your pass (which initially suggested defending) you will always be right to bid 6♦. If partner doubles, you can then bid 5♦ and allow partner to make the choice of whether to go on to six (he will now know you have offense=2).

[MFA]

I'm shying away from this treatment ("pass-double inversion"), since I find the disaster potential much too great.

Basically, the convention assumes that we are always in full agreement if a situation is forcing or not. This is too tough.

If we are unclear about the force, then we'll generally be much better off, if a pass is a pass and a double is a double. Playing inversions, partner could easily be getting the exact opposite message that we are trying to send (if one is inverting and the other is not)!

 

The advantage is subtle. As awm says, it's about the pass-and-pull hands.

If we have a pass-and-pull hand, we'll be better of playing inversions. Patner won't get in our way with a bid so often after our pass (since he's not invited to do so), and when he does, his hand will be better defined, which reduces our guesswork.

 

As I said, I find this convention too dangerous for general use. But within clearly defined frames, it could be worth it. A good example is after a strong club + positive response. Here every situation will be forcing, and the upside of the pass-and-pull to show a slamtry or flexibility will come up reasonably often.

[kgr]

Probably right that the risk is higher, because it will not always be clear if we are in a forcing pass or not (certainly not for my partnership).

But at the other hand: We play mostly take-out DBL's (..ok not at higher levels..). Absolute DBL is more similar to takeout DBL's as they both ask partner to bid more.

[kgr]

Additional info after talking to the player who plays this Absolute DBL's:

They do not need a forcing pass for these absolute DBLs. They always play it when level of bidding is Game or higher (except when they passed below game before). A DBL in not balancing position then says that they want to bid higher. The disadvantage is that they can not DBL for penalty and, because it is not forcing pass, it is possible that partner will also pass. But it seems like they are very happy with these Absolute DBL's and they consider it one of their best bidding agreements.

eg:

1H-(Pass)-2NT-(4S)

2NT is limit or better with 4 card H.

It doesn't matter if pass is forcing or not, a DBL now invites partner to bid. Opener can not DBL for penalty. If opener passes then DBL by his partner is penalty. These absolute DBLs are in fact take out DBLs at higher level.

 

1H-(1S)-4H-(4S)

Partners 4H is probably weak and distributional and pass is not forcing. Still they play Absolute DBL to invite to go to 5H, instead of bidding 5H if not absolutely sure that 5H is better then 4Sx. It is like consulting partner before taking away the possibility to play 4Sx.

 

What do you think? Do you like the idea? Is this new or have you already seen it played?