pass or pull?

[Finch]

Whether a particular auction creates a FP is a matter of agrement: Kokish and Kantar, probably the leading theorists of the past 30 years, disagree on some fp auctions.

I usually agree with mikeh (at least in competitive auctions) but here is a very good example: I do not think the original auction posted sets up a forcing pass

 

1C P 1H 2C

2H 3C 4H 5C

P

 

because, to me, it is not known who it bidding to make. Also, if I wanted to set up a forcing pass I could have bid 4C over 3C, but I didn't, I simply jumped to 4H.

 

(For example, give us the same distribution but without the ace of spades - say

Qxxx

Q10xxxx

x

x

 

and we might well have bid exactly the same way, particularly if not playing any form of pre-emptive heart response to 1C)

 

FWIW, I wouldn't have pulled the double of 5C either, but that is also a function of the forcing, or otherwise, nature of the pass. In a fp situation, partner's double just expresses the opinion that we are better defending than bidding on if I have a normal hand. In a non-fp situation, partner's double is pretty strictly for penalties and I have no reason to over-rule, as I have nothing unexpected.

 

These auctions are not easy, and often it is more a matter of partnership entente than anything else. So with your partner's hand, I would not have doubled as I have no particular reason to expect 5C is going off, and with your hand I would have bid 5H for exactly the same reason.

 

 

1. Not commonly a fp. S's 4♥ could be a semi-preemptive move, and thus not announcing ownership of the hand.

 

2. When the opps are vul and we are not, few would play this sequence (3♦ x 5♦) as a fp. Some players play that this would be fp if NS were red and EW white, but I am not one of them.

 

So, for me, neither of these are fp situations.

 

I agree with these.

[Finch]

There is no way for partner to tell these doubles apart (in the bad old days, a loud, fast double would be penalty and a soft or slow double would be 'I don't think we can make').

 

LOL maybe I could still have my partner kick me.

Thanks for the detailed explanation

One way to decide if pass is forcing or not is to have the following agreement:

 

If I am in a competitive auction, and I had a stronger way to show a raise to game, and I didn't take it, then pass is not forcing.

 

So:

 

1H P 2H 3C

4H 5C P

 

this is not forcing, if I wanted a forcing pass I would have bid 4C over 3C.

 

1S 2H 2S 3H

4S 5H P

 

this is not forcing, if I wanted a fp I would have bid 4H over 3H

 

1H 1S 3H 4S

5H P

 

again, I could have bid 4H over 3H to set up a fp

 

 

But you should not assume such an agreement - other people will tell you that the 'stronger' options I describe to set up a forcing pass are actually slam tries, or that they promise a control in the suit bid, which puts a slightly different interpretation on them.

 

Also, there are plenty of auctions where you don't have the opportunity to bid game in a 'forcing' manner, and then you are back to first principles (have I bid game on power? Are my opponents clearly saving?)

[mikeh]

One way to decide if pass is forcing or not is to have the following agreement:

 

If I am in a competitive auction, and I had a stronger way to show a raise to game, and I didn't take it, then pass is not forcing.

 

So:

 

1H P 2H 3C

4H 5C P

 

this is not forcing, if I wanted a forcing pass I would have bid 4C over 3C.

 

1S  2H  2S 3H

4S  5H  P

 

this is not forcing, if I wanted a fp I would have bid 4H over 3H

 

1H  1S  3H  4S

5H  P

 

again, I could have bid 4H over 3H to set up a fp

 

 

But you should not assume such an agreement - other people will tell you that the 'stronger' options I describe to set up a forcing pass are actually slam tries, or that they promise a control in the suit bid, which puts a slightly different interpretation on them.

 

Also, there are plenty of auctions where you don't have the opportunity to bid game in a 'forcing' manner, and then you are back to first principles (have I bid game on power?  Are my opponents clearly saving?)

 

I usually agree with Frances in these areas, but this is an example of an area where I do not (entirely) agree with her.

 

For example, on the OP hand, the 4♥ bidder was completely unlimited, so I would treat 4♣ over 3♣ as a slam try... S has to have a slam try available BECAUSE he is unlimited... actually, slightly more precisely, he needs a slam try because the partnership assets are unlimited and slam may be available.

 

Conversely, if the auction proceeded: 1♥ [2♣] 2♥ [3♣], the odds of slam being available are low.. opener is somewhat limited by the 1♥ opener and responder is very much limited by the 2♥ raise, so in this sequence it makes sense (to me, anyway) to use 4♣ as a 'we own this hand' bid, rather than as a slam try.

 

I had thought of getting into these areas earlier, but decided that this was overkill in terms of the thread to date, but Frances' posts have mde me change my mind.

 

Another possibility is to use a jump in a new suit (below our game) to show a side suit with values and to announce ownership of the hand and thus create a fp while helping partner evaluate.

 

Thus in the OP auction, a jump to 4♦ over 3♣ would have announced a double-fit and a power-raise to 4♥ while anticipating that the opps may be bidding 5♣.

 

I once attended a training weekend with Kokish as the coach hired by the Canadian Bridge Federation to give our team some help... he had at least 100 examples of auctions that we were to discuss in order to refine our fp agreements: he didn't expect us to agree as a team: this was purely for each partnership to think about.... fp sequences are amongst the most interesting and complex areas of bridge theory, and in many cases there is no 'right' answer other than whatever your partnership has decided to play. Having said that, there are undoubtedly good ground rules that most partnerships adopt, which is why Frances and I can disagree on the OP hand (it is definitely a fp by the rules I use in my partnerships, and can equally validly be played as non fp if one's rules are different) and still agree that neither of the more recent auctions are fp.