Forcing Pass?

[kfay]

An auction from club tonight:

 

All red. MPs

 

1NT-P-4H-Dbl

4S-5H-?

 

Is pass FORCING?!

 

What do you do with:

 

[hv=d=p&v=e&s=sqj1098xxxhxdxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: Matchpoints[/hv]

[han]

Not forcing.

 

Helene can tell you what the law of total tricks says after you post the vulnerability and the forum of scoring. I'll likely bid 5S.

[P_Marlowe]

No, pass is certainly not forcing.

 

5S looks reasonable, even if I can only come up with the

old excuse "What do you call a 8 card suit?"

 

Woth kind regards

Marlowe

[rogerclee]

I make a nonforcing pass.

[benlessard]

Ive had a couple of similar hands and depending on the vulnerability sometimes i prefer to bid 4S directly instead of making the Texas. Wrongsiding might cost less than allowing a "invite to sacrifice" double.

 

It doesnt really happen often enough so that i can make a good judgement about it.

 

Anyway pass is not forcing.

[bid_em_up]

Pass is not forcing.

 

I bid 5S.

[ArtK78]

Agree that pass is not forcing.

 

I would also bid 5♠.

 

4♠ directly is not available to me, as I differentiate between a strong invitational raise to 6NT (4NT) and a weaker invitational raise to 6NT (4♠). Besides, why would you want to declare 4♠?

[helene_t]

Not forcing.

 

Helene can tell you what the law of total tricks says after you post the vulnerability and the forum of scoring. I'll likely bid 5S.

yes, p is 3-3 in the majors so there are 20 total tricks and the five-level might belong to nobody, but at equal vulnerability 5♠ has bigger chance of being the winner.

[Guest Jlall]

definitely not forcing, texas does not promise any HCP at all.

[pclayton]

I think I've mentioned this before, but I had this exact auction on OKB about 9-10 years ago, and I swore up and down that pass was forcing, when we collected 150 out of 5♥.

 

I'm smarter now :)

[han]

Wiser maybe.

[skjaeran]

Pass is non-forcing.

I'm probably bidding 5♠ now, vulnerability and form of scoring might influence my choice.

[Finch]

Besides, why would you want to declare 4♠?

Because you have a highly distributional but fairly weak hand and you want i) the opponents to have to guess your hand rather than have e.g. a void and side suit showing in dummy, and ii) not to give them the chance to double your transfer bid.

[ArtK78]

Besides, why would you want to declare 4♠?

Because you have a highly distributional but fairly weak hand and you want i) the opponents to have to guess your hand rather than have e.g. a void and side suit showing in dummy, and ii) not to give them the chance to double your transfer bid.

As opposed to having your RHO leading into partner's strong hand (as opposed to having LHO leading through partner's strong hand)?

 

Yes, you have given them the chance to double 4♥ for the lead (or not double 4♥ to suggest a different lead).

 

Still, you have already made the decision to give up the possibility of bidding 4♥ naturally, instead using 4♦ as a transfer. Why keep two different ways at the 4-level of getting to 4♠? There are better uses for the idle 4♠ bid. I have already presented my preference.