Forcing Pass Agreements

[eyhung]

I've been busy codifying Forcing Pass agreements, and I would like the opinions of the group on whether responder's cue-bid promising limit-raise values or better sets up a force at the 4-level. We certainly agree it sets up a force at the 5-level, and our philosophy is that vulnerability is irrelevant. However, what about :

 

1H (1S) 2S (4S)

?

 

Is pass forcing?

 

 

1S (2H) 3H (4H)

?

 

Is pass forcing?

[Jlall]

No.

 

Since the cuebid is forcing to only 3 of your major, if they bid beyond 3 of your major it is NOT sensible to be in a forcing pass imo. Just because you can make 3H doesn't mean they can't make 4S.

 

Standard disclaimer with me that I think very few passes should be forcing.

[aguahombre]

who are the "we" who certainly agree that there is a forcing pass at the 5-level after limit or better at the 2 or 3 level and a big leap?

[eyhung]

We = me and most of the partners I play with. The 4-level leads to some disagreement, though.

 

Another related auction that came up:

 

1D (2NT) Dbl (4C)

?

 

Double = values, defensively oriented

 

Is Pass forcing here, especially after advancer appears to like one of intruder's suits?

[gnasher]

If we were forced to three of our major, that means that we should play forcing passes below our three of our major. However, there's no reason for that to also be the upper limit for our forcing passes.

 

Whether we should play a forcing pass at the game level depends on:

(1) How likely it is that we can make game

(2) How likely it is that they can make their contract

If (1) is much higher than (2), pass should be forcing, regardless of what we'd committed to before they bid.

 

I prefer to play that a limit raise by the opening side sets up a forcing pass at the four level or higher, unless the auction says that the passer doesn't need it to be. So:

  1♥ pass 3♥ [limit] 4♠

  pass

is forcing.

  1♠ pass 3♠ [limit] 4♥

  pass

is not forcing - opener can just bid game if he wants to accept.

  1♠ 2♣ 3♣ [limit+] 4♣

  pass 5♣ pass

is forcing, because responder is still unlimited.

  1♠ 2♣ 3♣ [limit+] 3♥

  3♠ 4♥ pass

is no forcing. If responder was only invitational, opener has declined the invitation; if responder was driving game, he can bid it himself.

 

By the defending side, I think pass should only be forcing below the level we were were already forced to. An overcall has too wide a range for us to make this sort of assumption about our defensive values.

[gnasher]

1D (2NT) Dbl (4C)

?

 

Double = values, defensively oriented

 

Is Pass forcing here, especially after advancer appears to like one of intruder's suits?

I play this one as forcing too.

[Jlall]

Don't agree that any of gnasher's auctions should be forcing but that's me.

[Cascade]

We play virtually no forcing passes unless:

 

1. Partner has explicitly forced to a certain level

 

2. We have made a (reasonably serious) slam try

[rhm]

No.

 

Since the cuebid is forcing to only 3 of your major, if they bid beyond 3 of your major it is NOT sensible to be in a forcing pass imo. Just because you can make 3H doesn't mean they can't make 4S.

 

Standard disclaimer with me that I think very few passes should be forcing.

I agree.

 

If you play forcing passes in anything but clearcut cases (you are strong like in a game forcing situation, they are not)

 

you

 

- create a lot of dubious sequences with the likelihood for misunderstandings

- require complex rules to remember

- usually only shift the headache to partner to make the final error for little gain if at all.

 

Finally I have never understood why opponents at favorable vulnerability can not have game (or slam) in hand.

 

Forcing passes are overrated.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

You can solve this situation by using 2NT as a fit showing bid in all competitive auctions (after a major opening). With two strong raise options you can divide up your LIMIT raises and G/F raises. Personally I use the cuebid to shows exactly an limit raise, while 2NT is GF.

 

Using this method solves all your forcing pass worries.

[MFA]

I am also in the anti-forcing pass camp, and none of the sequences so far in this thread would be forcing in my partnership.

 

1D (2NT) Dbl (4C)

?

 

Double = values, defensively oriented

 

Here our default rule would apply that whenever we make a strength-showing (defensive oriented) double or redouble, and the opps jump, passes are NF and doubles by both sides take-out. Unless we are in a gameforcing auction obviously.

[jallerton]

sorry posted as the wrong person again

[Finch]

I haven't got used to my husband being a more active member of these fora.

 

I don't play any of these passes as forcing (unusual for me to disagree so much with gnasher). I stick to the rule that after we have forced to a particular level, pass is not forcing when they bid above that level.

 

I do have a few exceptions, although you haven't come up with my exceptions yet.

 

1. After partner has shown a four-card limit raise in spades, pass is forcing over 4H (we play 1S 2H 2NT as a 4-card raise, now pass is forcing if the next hand bids 4H).

 

2. When our suit is hearts, and they bid 3S, simply bidding game does not set up an FP, but 3NT does

 

i.e. 1H 1S {heart raise} 3S 3NT sets up FP, 4H doesn't

4m over 3S is natural, inviting partner to bid on, but doesn't set up an FP. 4m then double just shows extra offence.

 

3. If we show a high card limit raise and they jump to the 5-level, pass is forcing. e.g. 1H 2D 3D 5D. Technically this breaks the above rule, but we reckon that if we have the majority of the HCP then they shouldn't be making at the 5-level (yes, I know this doesn't entirely hold up, but it does most of the time ).

 

4. If they pre-empt and both our hands show values, pass becomes forcing e.g. 2S x 3S x (responsive) now if opener or responder bids again we are in a FP.

(I once conceded 1210 on an auction starting like this, but that one got written down to experience).

[Fluffy]

I think forcing passes are fine, they can leave you sometimes with no possible winning decision, but the advantage of 2 way bidding is better than that.

 

IMO any bid that declares that we have more strenght that the opponents is enough to stablish a forcing pass situation. A cuebid after partner opens or a power double seems good enough.

[nigel_k]

I really don't like a limit raise to create any kind of force. The reason is that a limit raise need not have that many high cards. It's a statement of the strength of your hand in support of partner's suit which can be very different from your strength in defence. It's not the same as showing invitational values with no suit agreed. E.g.

 

xxx QJxx x KJxxx

 

If the bidding starts 1H-(2D) I'd regard this as too strong for a preemptive 3♥ so would bid 3♦. If you don't agree make it a bit stronger. In any case you really don't want to be forced to bid or double if they go to 5♦ and partner is minimum.

[dellache]

Not forcing.

[dake50]

Absolutely! Why on earth did partner choose the Q-bid? Not raise, jump raise, new suit force, 2N,3N nat/art, X to follow strong?

 

Could he have been stuck with DT and good support? AND intended that message?

[gnasher]

xxx QJxx x KJxxx

 

If the bidding starts 1H-(2D) I'd regard this as too strong for a preemptive 3♥ so would bid 3♦.

I agree that showing a limit raise with this is dangerous if it creates a forcing pass. That's one of the reasons that I'd bid game with this hand.