Forcing Pass - or maybe not?

[TRad]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skqj732h1042dk2c75&w=s1086hj73d643caq93&e=s94h86da97ckj10862&s=sa5hakq95dqj1085c4]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

_W__N__E__S_

____2♦__pass 4♣

x___4♥__5♣__PASS

pass x__pass__pass

pass

 

2♦ - Polish multi

4♣ - bid 4♦ with ♥, 4♥ with ♠

PASS - forcing, after agreed hesitation

 

NS weren't able to prove that 4♣ makes future passes forcing.

The Director make a poll and found that about 2/3 of the peers think PAS in this situation should be forcing, 1/3 thought it should be NF.

EW were arguing that the situation was unclear and the hesitation has made doubling much easier.

Another poll has shown that after NF PASS pass is LA.

 

Do you allow the final double?

[jeremy69]

In the absence of proof I would not let North double here. Pass is a logical alternative.

Should the pass, if forcing, have been alerted?

[dan_ehh]

4♣s can be an advanced preemptive bid and does not show a strong hand, so unless NS can prove that they have an agreement that the pass is forcing, I would not allow the double.

[blackshoe]

The law does not require proof, it requires convincing evidence.

[bluejak]

Too quick for me, Ed. I was just about to post the same!

[duschek]

4♣s can be an advanced preemptive bid and does not show a strong hand, so unless NS can prove that they have an agreement that the pass is forcing, I would not allow the double.

Agree 100%.

[jeremy69]

The law does not require proof, it requires convincing evidence.

 

The evidence to convince me of the truth of their statement would be some proof that their assertion was correct. But feel free to nitpick some more.

[peachy]

One cannot find evidence, let alone proof, for every auction that could ever happen whether there is forcing pass or not. The NS pair was constructively bidding game, therefore FP applies over their competition. A common well-known metarule is that when our side is in GF auction or has constructively bid game (not 1H-X-4H, or 1H-4H, for example) then FP applies. So IMO South's Pass was forcing. by general bridge knowledge if the NS were advanced level players or experienced by some years, at least. The final double is fine, IMO.

[blackshoe]

But feel free to nitpick some more.

I'm not nitpicking. And perhaps you should keep your insults to yourself.

[bluejak]

The law does not require proof, it requires convincing evidence.

The evidence to convince me of the truth of their statement would be some proof that their assertion was correct. But feel free to nitpick some more.

I am worried that people will believe your statement which is wrong. Judgement decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence, not on proof, and I worry that people may believe that this one should be decided on proof.

 

Bridge is a game with two contestants and judgement decisions decide between them like civil courts, where proof is not the yardstick. It is different for a disciplinary case, which often is merely a person v the authorities, and proof may be required.

[jeremy69]

therefore FP applies over their competition.

 

I am sure that you can agree to do this but I don't beleive it is automatic to do so. If it is an environment where pass is alertable if forcing then a lack of an alert would be all the "proof" that I would require. If an alert is not required then I would expect the side claiming thepass to be forcing the be able to demonstrate that it was. In events where system files are not carried around this will be difficult.

 

I'm not nitpicking.

 

The reason I said "nitpicking" is that a distinction between "proof" and "some proof" is being applied. I doubt there is a substantial difference between "convincing evidence" and "substantial proof" Rarely in any situation do you get absolute proof. Feel free to take offence however! :ph34r:

 

Judgement decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence, not on proof

 

In a court of law the standard would be "The criminal standard of proof on the prosecution is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, which means proof to a high degree of probability but not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt."

 

In this case no alert(if one is required) and no system file (to substantiate the forcing nature of their pass) would be sufficient evidence or proof (choose A or B as required) as would be needed on any appeal committee I sat on. There is an onus on the side alleging that their pass is forcing to substantiate this(better word than prove?).

[MFA]

I don't think it would even occur to me that pass could be forcing here.

North opens a multi and south blasts game. Why should that be a strong hand?

 

It only makes sense to play this as forcing if there is another way to raise to 4M that doesn't create a forcing pass.

[duschek]

It only makes sense to play this as forcing if there is another way to raise to 4M that doesn't create a forcing pass.

We have not been told the meaning of a 2♦-4♦ auction. It might ask partner to bid 4 of his major. This should not create a forcing pass either, but that fact is certainly not sufficient for 2♦-4♣ to create a forcing pass situation.

[TRad]

It only makes sense to play this as forcing if there is another way to raise to 4M that doesn't create a forcing pass.

We have not been told the meaning of a 2♦-4♦ auction. It might ask partner to bid 4 of his major. This should not create a forcing pass either, but that fact is certainly not sufficient for 2♦-4♣ to create a forcing pass situation.

Yes, 2♦-4♦ means bid your suit. There is also 2NT bid which is a relay asking for suit and strength.

[blackshoe]

The reason I said "nitpicking" is that a distinction between "proof" and "some proof" is being applied.

Not by me. Dan said

unless NS can prove that they have an agreement that the pass is forcing, I would not allow the double.

There is no suggestion there of "some proof", just "proof", and it is that assertion to which I was replying.

Feel free to take offence however! :P

Strange way to apologize, but I'll accept it. :(

In this case no alert(if one is required) and no system file (to substantiate the forcing nature of their pass) would be sufficient evidence or proof (choose A or B as required) as would be needed on any appeal committee I sat on. There is an onus on the side alleging that their pass is forcing to substantiate this(better word than prove?).

Yes there is. What if there were an entry on both convention cards*? That's certainly evidence. And yes, substantiate is better than prove.

 

I might or might not, in any particularly case, agree with you as to whether the available evidence substantiates a claim as to system, but what I will not do, on any committee on which we are both sitting, is allow you to dictate to me what my opinion shall be. Even if it happened in England. (I wouldn't let a member of the ACBL's LC so dictate here either).

 

*It doesn't appear that was the case here. Consider it a hypothetical question.

[jeremy69]

I agree that an entry on both convention cards would be an important pointer and happily add that to the list of substantiation/evidence/proof although the chances of this happening are the same as me winning the lottery on the Planet Tharg.

 

In the matter of "dictating" to you on an appeal committee then in the unlikely event we are on one together and we have different and irreconcilable views there might have to be a dissenting opinion but that is very rare. I can recall this happening once when a member(who had played at international level and was a member of the EBL hierarchy) insisted on splitting a score when it was illegal to so do. A look at the law and the regulations failed to persuade him.

 

Strange way to apologize, but I'll accept it.

 

Glad you took it that way

[blackshoe]

Everybody wins the lottery on the planet Tharg. The trick is getting there to buy a ticket. :(

 

I am not intractible. No doubt you'd be able to persuade me, particularly if it was a case of reading the laws. Unless it went "well, yes, that's what the law says, but this is what it means." A couple of highly placed people have told me that a time or two. I can recognize reality when it slaps me in the face, but I don't have to like it. And I have no problem being the lone dissenter on a committee.

[Finch]

I don't think this ruling is as obvious as some people think.

- The very fact that South passed over 5C is clear evidence that he considered pass to be forcing, and not only that but he expected partner to think it was forcing as well (or else he would not have passed).

- We don't know what NS had said, but if North said "a slow pass in a forcing auction gives no UI, he was obviously trying to decide whether to pass, or bid/double, why are you trying to stop me acting?" he might have a very good case.

 

There's also a problem with the poll, because what you are reflecting are individual partnerships' views on whether this type of undefined sequence sets up a forcing pass. Most pairs playing this 4C kit have another way to getting equally fast to 4 of partner's major (either by responding 4D or 4H); it's not absurd to say that this one is strong and sets up a FP.

 

It's very unlikely any cc or system file will have this specific sequence in. In the partnership where I play a multi, we have a very long system file, and it doesn't mention this sequence. However, we have a general rule that in uncertain situations pass is not forcing, and another general rule that it's very hard to set up forcing pass auctions after a pre-empt so for us pass would not be forcing. But some friends of mine in another partnership would definitely play this pass as forcing, I know they play a lot of passes as forcing that we don't.

 

So what I would like to see (but obviously I'm not going to) is not necessarily evidence that this sequence has been discussed, but some evidence of their general FP philosophy.

 

Failing that, I would tend to rule that the result stands. Look at it this way:

 

- North's bidding is consistent with thinking pass is forcing

- South's biddin is consistent with thinking pass is forcing

- Playing forcing pass, South does have a genuine problem over 5C which justifies some thought; and we know that a slow forcing pass gives little UI (if you agree that the forcing nature of the pass is uncontroversial)

- So from a NS perspective I'm struggling to see where the evidence is that they have given any UI and hence that there should be an adjustment.

[MFA]

I don't think this ruling is as obvious as some people think.

I hope I'm not included in that pack :P, since I'm not ruling anything before TD has come closer to establishing the facts.

For starters it would be nice to ask NS about their total agreements about how to get to 4M after a multi, and about their agreements on forcing passes in general.

 

- The very fact that South passed over 5C is clear evidence that he considered pass to be forcing, and not only that but he expected partner to think it was forcing as well (or else he would not have passed).

I'm not sure I agree with this.

What is south doing with a forcing pass on this hand? Is he really hoping to bid 5 over 5 with a combined 6-2 fit for no particular reason? For me it's unclear if south intended his pass as forcing or not.

 

It's very unlikely any cc or system file will have this specific sequence in. In the partnership where I play a multi, we have a very long system file, and it doesn't mention this sequence.

This I agree with. It's not really realistic to hope for a description for this sequence in the system notes.

[dan_ehh]

As far as I know, most players who play Multi play that the difference between bidding 4♣ and bidding 4♦ is that the former is meant to make responder declarer and the latter is meant to make opener declarer.

Neither of them are meant to establish a force, because 2NT is available for that.

 

I do not see how any of the comments made so far are disputing the common sense approach - bidding 4♣ can be an advanced preemptive bid. It is the same situation as when partner opens a weak two and you raise to 4. It can be a strong hand which wants to play game but not slam, and it can also be a weak hand which wants to block the opponents. The same principle applies to this 4♣ bid - it just means responder wants to play at the 4 level regardless of which major opener holds.

Granted, the 4♣ bidder will sometimes have a really strong hand, one which, for instance, wants to play 4♥ if partner has hearts, but which wants to investigate 6♠ if partner holds spades. But the Multi bidder cannot know that until responder makes a second bid.

 

If the North-South pair wish to dispute this common sense approach, they must provide some evidence (not proof - wrong term. I stand corrected) that their approach is different than the normal one.

 

- The very fact that South passed over 5C is clear evidence that he considered pass to be forcing, and not only that but he expected partner to think it was forcing as well (or else he would not have passed).

This is true. However, "south considered his pass to be forcing and expected partner to think so as well" does not equal "south's pass was forcing". Players often bid in a certain way while expecting their partner to be on the same wavelength, and it is not so.

A simple example: 1NT-(2♣)-2♥-p-p-p. At the end of the board (or, more likely, in the middle of the play), the opponents find out that 2♥ was intended as a transfer. Is that any indication that the NS agreement is that transfers are on after the interference? Or is it an indication that they have no agreement and it was a misunderstanding?

 

I think forcing passes are very delicate situations and I also think partnerships should strive to include as many of them in their system notes as possible, exactly because there is no other way to prove your claim that the pass was indeed forcing.

[blackshoe]

It is not necessarily common sense to play a convention a certain way just because "everybody" plays it that way. In any case, it doesn't matter. The TD needs to investigate the NS methods, and determine to his satisfaction whether the pass in question is systemically forcing. In that investigation, testimony from the NS players, their convention cards, and their system notes are all evidence, and the TD will weigh all of that and arrive at a conclusion.

 

In the case at hand, 4♣ may or may not, in this pair's system, set up a forcing pass. We don't know. We can't ask them. So we're guessing. About all we can say for sure is that if the pass in question is forcing, the ruling should be such-and-such, and if it's not, the ruling should be something else.

[bluejak]

Judgement decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence, not on proof

In a court of law the standard would be "The criminal standard of proof on the prosecution is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, which means proof to a high degree of probability but not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt."

That is a criminal court of Law. But judgement rulings are on a similar basis to a civil court of Law, where the above standard does not apply.

[greenender]

A more general question arising from this thread.

 

To what extent do people think it is reasonable for the TD to take a poll on the question of whether the bridge logic of a situation makes a pass forcing? Assume that, as here, even a pair with a moderately comprehensive system file are unlikely to have covered the FP implications of the specific sequence directly.

 

Clearly the poll must be presented in a way that gives all the relevant information (here what other ways of raising to game may be available, and any inferences clearly available as a result).

 

Although I don't know for certain what a "Polish" Multi is, I play a Multi with the same 4♣/4♦ responses, which are used on any hand prepared to take a stab at game in either major for any reason (normally no slam interest as it is usually helpful to find out more at a lower level via 2NT with slam interest). My system file certainly contains no reference to this particular sequence in terms of forcing passes, but it does contain the sort of section Frances mentions about general FP philosophy. I would expect my partner to agree with my conclusion that 4♣ (and 4♦) create a forcing pass at adverse vulnerability (Red), but not at any other conditions, and IIRC what the FP section of the file says, it backs this conclusion.

 

Otherwise I agree with most of what dan_ehh says.

[TRad]

Although I don't know for certain what a "Polish" Multi is,

No strong options. Weak block on ♥/♠