Now What?

[easy]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s6hat98xdakxxckqj]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

 

 

You deal and open 1H , lho bids 4S, pard bids 5h and rho bids 5s.

 

In you regular partnerships:

 

1)what are your foricing pass agreements?

2) Is this a forcing pass situation?

3) What do you do now?

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s6hat98xdakxxckqj]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

 

 

You deal and open 1H , lho bids 4S, pard bids 5h and rho bids 5s.

 

In you regular partnerships:

 

1)what are your foricing pass agreements?

2) Is this a forcing pass situation?

3) What do you do now?

1) After my direct raises (which are preemptive), forcing pass is never established. This raise to the five level, however, is somewhat special. First we are vulnerable and they are not, so partner was bidding 5♥ to make. I play 5♣ and 5♦ here as fit non-jumps, so partner could have bid one of those with an appropriate hand.

 

2) Yes, despite my rule in #1, this is a different kind of direct raise. So this, in fact, is a forcing pass situation. I will not use a forcing pass here, however, I will simply bid my slam. Sure we may have a grand slam, but even if partner has both black aces and good ♥ support, we still have to worry about third round of ♦. There is no way to know if grand is right, and a forcing pass and then pull to slam (inviting grand), will never be able to obtain all the information I need.

 

3) I bid 6♥, I suspect the real decision will be what to do over 6♠, considering the vulnerability.

 

Ben

[Free]

I'll probably pass, and if partner Doubles I'll bid my 6♥ and dbl over 6♠. If he bids 6♥, then we get the problems if it's going to be grand slam or not...

[tysen2k]

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ 6 ♥ AT98x ♦ AKxx ♣ KQJ

 

 

 

 

You deal and open 1H , lho bids 4S, pard bids 5h and rho bids 5s.

 

Yes this is a FP situation for the reasons inquiry said. Partner bid 5♥ to make.

 

I like the style that some pairs have adopted of switching the traditional meanings of pass and double in FP situations.

 

So I'll double which suggests 1 (maybe 2) trumps and not extreme shape. Partner has a better idea of the total trumps than I do. He's smart and knows the vulnerability too. I'm not expecting him to leave the double in, but if he does, I'm betting it will be right.

 

Tysen

[Flame]

if its not a forcing pass then:

3. you have a clear double, your hand is not even close to any other bid even with this vulnerability.

with 5-5 you might think about it.

if it is a forcing pass i'll use it. and pass.

[inquiry]

I assume that FREE is going to bid at least SIX, since he is using forcing pass followed by pull of partner's double. This of course invites grand slam and missing two aces (including the one in their bid suit), I would not bid this way if it was me. I assume Flame is going to stick in 5♠X if partner goes that route over the forcing pass, and indeed if I passed the decision here with this hand, I too would stick in 5♠X, however, this is why I don't make the forcing pass... because, I am not stopping short of slam on this auction.

 

Now as to why I am bidding slam. My hand is a lot better than it has to be. In fact, it is very much better than minimum. Let's let ZAR points lead the way. We have a good fit, probably a super fit, for this auction. So let's count our ZAR points in our hand. We have 36 ZAR point right out of the box, not counting any for the fit. That is 2 full level (10 points) higher than an opening bid. Our partner, who thinks we might have as few as 26 ZAR points pushed to the five level. For the five level, he needs to count us as having 57 ZAR points total. If he counted on me having a minimum of 26, that would suggest he has 31 or so. OF course the 4♠ put pressure on him, so he may be a little bit light of this 31, but surely he has at least 26 here. So we have his minimum of 26 + my 36. That is already 62 ZAR points, at a minimum. Oddly enough, 62 ZAR points is what is needed for "slam". But it is better than this. First I have fitting points I can now add. Now that a fit is found, I can add two points for the ♥AT, that brings me to 38. I can also add two points for the singleton ♠, that brings me to 40. My 40 and partner's presumed minimum of 26 puts us very close to grand slam "67" need for the grand (so Free isn't too far from wrong with his grand slam try auction) . In fact, since partner very likely has more than 26 ZAR points, we may well have 70 or more combined ZAR points, but we couild still be off an ACE, or a third round ♦ trick, and there is no way to check that here. So I will simply bid 6♥ and worry about forcing pass on the next round on the next round to invite grand slam (I play bidding 6♥ then using forcing pass is weaker grand slam than bidding 6♥ immediately... if partner has two aces on that auction, he will know what to do). It would be interesting to see what Zar himself would bid. :-)

 

Ben

[Fluffy]

I play that there are no forcing pass sequences in competitive biddings unless someone have bid a vulnerable vs not vulnerable free game level bid, here is that case so I think it is forcing.

 

Ok, I am a bit chicken, and won´t play 6 unless pd bids them, so pass& then pass is my option (putting both passes on the table at same time may be a good strrategy to let partner know everything quicker ;) )

 

Ups!, why did you bid 5NT?, what?, I am not allowed to bring back my pass?, ARGGG

[Shrike]

My own rule for forcing passes, which is not optimal but is easily conveyed to and remebered by partner (probably the only part of my card that satisfies this condition):

 

1. Pass is forcing if we have established a trump fit and that we have the balance of strength; and

 

2. Pass is forcing if we have established that we have high card values sufficient for a normal 3NT, with or without a fit. (Note that we concede large numbers now and then.)

 

Here, I agree with those who argue that the vulnerability establishes that condition 1 applies; otherwise, it wouldn't. Or I don't think it would. I ask my partners never to consider vulnerability in determining whether pass is forcing, but this hand probably shows why that's a bad appraoch. Here, it's hard to imagine that condition 1 doesn't apply, but it's hard to prove.

 

Regardless, I'm bidding 6H. Partner should carry on to seven with two aces. One ace will not be enough for him to move even if it's clubs, because he knows I don't have a spade void (I didn't bid 5S). If he has the spade void and the club ace, we'll miss it. Sigh.

[Trpltrbl]

5♥ is bid to be made opposite a minimum hand, I have great hand now. common sense will tell me to bid 6♥, where can pd possibly have his points to justify his 5♥ call, either void in ♠, which I doubt or at least 1 ace.

 

Mike ;)

[mishovnbg]

1. If aready show strength for level of bidding or game in vul.

2. Yes, FP situation.

3. 6♥ and dbl 6♠ because my p bid 5♥, not 4NT,5♣,5♦...\

Misho