Forcing Pass Successes (was: Best bidding system)

[Gerben47]

I did some digging and I found this post by Pertti Karppinen in 1991:

Here are some good results by forcing pass pairs:

 

In 1984 Olympiad Hulgaard-Schou played Lilla Lojliga Saffle Spader

(or Saffle Spade) - a peculiar system with following features:

  - pass  = 8+, at least four spades, unlimited and forcing

  - 1C    = 8+, at least four hearts, 0-3 spades, unlimited and forcing

  - 1D    = 0-7 any

  - 1H    = 8+, forcing, no four card majors

  - 1S/1NT = NT-openings without four card majors

  - conventional two level openings

Denmark took the bronze medals (?).  Poland, which won the event, was not

using any forcing pass systems (?).  (As you have guessed, for these details

I have only my memory to support me)

 

In 1987 European Championship Flint-Sheehan played a system with 1C 'mini'

fert and forcing pass.  Great Britain finished 2nd.

 

In 1989 Cavendish Invitational an Estonian (USSR) pair Ostavel-Sula finished

2nd.  I'm not sure if they were allowed to use their totally conventional

system, which utilized forcing pass when not vulnerable.  Maybe they had to

play the system they normally used only when vulnerable throughout the

tournament.

 

In 1987 Bermuda Bowl Armstrong-Forrester utilized TRS (The Random System),

with 11-15 (NF) pass, 1D 0-9 fert, 16+ 1C and limited 1MAJ openings, showing

either 0-1 or 5+ in the bid suit.  Flint-Sheehan played still their mini

fert.  The team beat Sweden in the semifinals but lost to the USA team in

the final.

 

In 1989 European Championships Balicki-Zmudzinski utilized The System No Name,

which has 13+ forcing pass, 1D 0-7 fert, 8-12 conventional openings.  Poland

won the event.  In the same event Gothe-Gullberg played Carrotti with medium

(12-16) pass, 1D 0-7(8) fert, two-way 1C (either 17+ any or 9-11 bal) and 8-12

naturalish major suit openings.  Sweden got the bronze medals.

 

In 1991 European Championships (16th June - 29th June) Gullberg-Sundelin

played Carrotti.  Sweden finished 2nd.  In the same event Balicki-Zmudzinski

used The System No Name.  Poland was 3rd. (By the way Great Britain won

and Iceland was 4th; four first travel to Yokohama)

[DrTodd13]

Anybody have a good set of notes for Carrotti?

 

Todd

[Rado]

Hi all,

 

Having in mind the rules of bridge (allowed bids, methods of scoring, vulnerability) Forcing Pass proved to utilize the bidding space to supply the mathematical maximum (or near it) information available for description of the hands. I strongly believe that Forcing Pass will be the future of the bidding in our beloved game called bridge.

I have some experience playing Lambda, Beznazvy(No name) and Rozkladowy system in the early 90's. It was really exciting especially when both pairs used similar methods:-)

Rado

[1eyedjack]

Forcing Pass proved to utilize the bidding space to supply the mathematical maximum (or near it) information available for description of the hands.

You may be right. An alternative viewpoint is that the amount of bidding space available to you is only that much space that the opponents allow you. Extrapolating the consequence of that it MAY be better to ensure that your bid definitions are evenly divided between the bids available.

[luis]

It's not about bidding space, it's about the number of hands you open and how high you open them without losing control.

As known 8-12 is the most popular range for a bridge hand so opening 8-12 hands with 1x maximizes the number of hands you open 1x. The idea is simple start early, found your fit and or strength early, save space for your constructive bidding and asfixiate their constructive bidding when appropiate.

The only problem with forcing pass systems is that they are against the business of bridge which is teaching social players how to play SAYC so they can play at the club once a week.

[Rado]

Forcing Pass proved to utilize the bidding space to supply the mathematical maximum (or near it) information available for description of the hands.

You may be right. An alternative viewpoint is that the amount of bidding space available to you is only that much space that the opponents allow you. Extrapolating the consequence of that it MAY be better to ensure that your bid definitions are evenly divided between the bids available.

To Eye:

I mean that opening PASS (13+) saves some space than opening 2♣ FG for example. Opponents have the right to interfere always (it does not matter what system you use) and Opps overcalls are seperate theme to discuss.

 

to Luis:

You are absolutelly right about the probabilities of 0-7p, 8-12p, and 13+ and thats one of the major advantages of FP sys: the most probable range 8-12 is described immediattely with picture opening

 

Regards

Rado

[1eyedjack]

To Eye:

I mean that opening PASS (13+) saves some space than opening 2♣ FG for example.

Case 1:

S ... W ... N ... E

2C ..2D ..??

 

Case 2:

S ... W ... N ... E

P! ...2D ...??

 

So, which of Case 1 and Case 2 provides North with more bidding space? The Pass or the 2C opener?

 

YOU may wish to consider the possibility of intervention as a "separate theme to discuss". *I* say there is no justification for separating the themes.

[DrTodd13]

To a certain degree, I've started giving the opponents a chance to bid when I know that the hand belongs to my side. All they are doing is giving me information for when I am declaring the hand. Same thing against forcing pass. Right now, opps do not know when to interfere nor how to interfere. Sometimes they make these little step interferences that actually end up giving us room in a sequence of relays.

 

Todd

[whereagles]

I've toyed with the idea of forcing pass systems once. I was thinking of something like this

 

pass: 13+

1-level: 8-12

1C: 0-7

 

Now.. this has two major problems:

 

1. The pass as 13+ starts too low. This is like bringing a strong club opener to 13+. It doesn't work very well... it comes up too often, doesn't show shape, too wide-ranging, and therefore it can get you into trouble if opps compete. And they will do it, because now they stand to have a bit more points.

 

2. The 1-level openings, albeit frequent, truncate too early. An 8-12 hand cannot afford to make jump rebids due to lack of playing strenght. I'm talking about auctions like this:

 

1H 1S

3m

 

In sayc this is a hand around 18-20 points with 54 and 4-5 losers.

In precision you'd have around 14-15 points with 55 and 5 losers.

In an 8-12 opening you'd need something like a 65 to have 5 losers.

 

Now... an 8-12 point 65 with 5 losers doesn't come very often. As a result, the above auction will seldom happen at strong pass. Not an optimal usage of the available bidding space. Even if 1S here is some sort of GF shape-ask relay, the rebid 3m is only an option opposite this relay, not opposite other bids.

 

So I concluded I'd have to play it like this

 

pass = 16+

1-level = 11-15

2-level = 5-10 1-suiters (5-6 cards)

1C = 0-9

 

But to play it like this, I might as well swap pass and 1C and play a normal strong club system!!!

[EricK]

I've toyed with the idea of forcing pass systems once. I was thinking of something like this

 

pass: 13+

1-level: 8-12

1C: 0-7

 

Now.. this has two major problems:

 

1. The pass as 13+ starts too low. This is like bringing a strong club opener to 13+. It doesn't work very well... it comes up too often, doesn't show shape, too wide-ranging, and therefore it can get you into trouble if opps compete. And they will do it, because now they stand to have a bit more points.

 

2. The 1-level openings, albeit frequent, truncate too early. An 8-12 hand cannot afford to make jump rebids due to lack of playing strenght. I'm talking about auctions like this:

 

1H 1S

3m

 

In sayc this is a hand around 18-20 points with 54 and 4-5 losers.

In precision you'd have around 14-15 points with 55 and 5 losers.

In an 8-12 opening you'd need something like a 65 to have 5 losers.

 

Now... an 8-12 point 65 with 5 losers doesn't come very often. As a result, the above auction will seldom happen at strong pass. Not an optimal usage of the available bidding space. Even if 1S here is some sort of GF shape-ask relay, the rebid 3m is only an option opposite this relay, not opposite other bids.

 

So I concluded I'd have to play it like this

 

pass = 16+

1-level = 11-15

2-level = 5-10 1-suiters (5-6 cards)

1C = 0-9

 

But to play it like this, I might as well swap pass and 1C and play a normal strong club system!!!

You might like to consider a two-way pass system where the initial pass shows something like 16+ or 0-7. This makes (destructive) intervention harder for the opps, and also allows you one extra one level bid to separate out the 8-15 hands. Of course, the responses to the initial pass have to be constructed more carefully as responder does not know which hand "opener" has.

 

Eric

[the hog]

Tony Forrester used to play a system called TRS - the random system, which had a medium pass. 1M was 0-2 or 5+ cards in that suit.

Was not very succesful.

[whereagles]

Yeah I tried that 11-15 pass for a while. Not too hot...

 

As for pass = 0-7 or 16+, I tried that as well, but wasn't too pleased with it. Never could come up with a decent continuation for it.

[Rado]

To Eye:

I mean that opening PASS (13+) saves some space than opening 2♣ FG for example.

Case 1:

S ... W ... N ... E

2C ..2D ..??

 

Case 2:

S ... W ... N ... E

P! ...2D ...??

 

So, which of Case 1 and Case 2 provides North with more bidding space? The Pass or the 2C opener?

 

YOU may wish to consider the possibility of intervention as a "separate theme to discuss". *I* say there is no justification for separating the themes.

Thank YOU very much for your mentoring tone

Will try to follow always ONLY your advices

Rado

[the hog]

Case 1:

S ... W ... N ... E

2C ..2D ..??

 

Well in case 1 how do you play pass /2H /2S 2N+

 

Case 2:

S ... W ... N ... E

P! ...2D ...??

 

Here in wor

2H/S = 7-10 nf, X = 7-10 no other bid to make, 2N+ = rubensohl GF

 

NOW In what structure are you better placed??

 

So, which of Case 1 and Case 2 provides North with more bidding space? The Pass or the 2C opener?

 

Did I answer your question?

[TimG]

Tony Forrester used to play a system called TRS - the random system, which had a medium pass. 1M was 0-2 or 5+ cards in that suit.

Was not very succesful.

From the start of the thread:

 

In 1987 Bermuda Bowl Armstrong-Forrester utilized TRS (The Random System),

with 11-15 (NF) pass, 1D 0-9 fert, 16+ 1C and limited 1MAJ openings, showing

either 0-1 or 5+ in the bid suit. Flint-Sheehan played still their mini

fert. The team beat Sweden in the semifinals but lost to the USA team in

the final.

 

That seems like some success.

[MarceldB]

>I've toyed with the idea of forcing pass systems once. I was thinking of something like

>this

 

>pass: 13+

>1-level: 8-12

>1C: 0-7

A Strong clubber will be very thankfull for your Fert, not disturbing his own system at all.

 

>Now.. this has two major problems:

 

>1. The pass as 13+ starts too low. This is like bringing a strong club opener to 13+.

 

But with a great difference. Opposite a 16+ as opponent you normally don't have game prospects. Reason for all those different kind of defences.

Opposite 13+ , game prospects are not excluded at all for the opponent. So your defence tools should be completely different.

 

>It doesn't work very well... it comes up too often, doesn't show shape, too >wide-ranging, and therefore it can get you into trouble if opps compete. And they will do >it, because now they stand to have a bit more points.

 

Opposite 16+ they bid more often with less points too. All depends on the level of the interference & your handling. 1C-1H no problem you can play system-on, 1S you loose the 1C bid (not the 12+ part of it!) 1D and 1H, rest system-on as a possibility or not.

2 or > level interference could cause more problems. (play Ruben-/Lebensohl and take out double).

Pass - (1S) - bid - (2S) , still you have info from partner. I admitt high(er) level interference are difficult, but in natural bidding not? Okay you do not know openers suit, all has it's price. I take it into the bargain.

 

Regarding the wide range:

Don't forget that the Pass-opener is the Relayer (can change afterwards with an s/void shape eventually or Partner is stronger). Natural 11-19 or a ++ (including 2NT-like slemkillers) are much more difficult to handle even in uncontested bidding as a 13+.

 

In case of interference he will tell you undoubtly too that he has a minimum, medium or max if you can not play system-on and in coop. with your own bid.

 

Finally WOS systems are relay systems (with a lot of natural bids or n.f. relays for the 8-12 openings or 6-10/11 after Pass too)

 

But the main issue still remains:

0-7 frequency 28,58% (less something for A+ any K)

8-12 frequency 44,62% (+ " )

13+ frequency 26,80%

 

compared with your proposal

0-9 frequency 56,23% / 23,37% = 1suiter 5-10p.)

11-15 frequency 34,00%

16+ frequency 9,77%

 

I will continue furtheron.

 

>2. The 1-level openings, albeit frequent, truncate too early. An 8-12 hand cannot afford >to make jump rebids due to lack of playing strenght. I'm talking about auctions like this:

 

>1H 1S

>3m

 

>In sayc this is a hand around 18-20 points with 54 and 4-5 losers.

>In precision you'd have around 14-15 points with 55 and 5 losers.

>In an 8-12 opening you'd need something like a 65 to have 5 losers.

 

Sorry??

Main characteristic of the 8-12 issue is that

- occurs most so use good skils here,

- many times points are ca. 20/20 divided, so reach as quick as possible a satisf. contract

(if not the optional one, no problem, you gave the opponent no chance to investigate their one)

- therefore partner gives a describing bid too (up to 13 points -no problem- a relay is not necessary always!)

 

Therefore your opening bid has to carry already a good definition primary and I mean not the suit only.

Reason why you shall smart for the fact that your range 11-15 contains 4 openingbids only for all the shapes.

 

>Now... an 8-12 point 65 with 5 losers doesn't come very often. As a result, the above >auction will seldom happen at strong pass. Not an optimal usage of the available bidding >space. Even if 1S here is some sort of GF shape-ask relay, the rebid 3m is only an option >opposite this relay, not opposite other bids.

 

Then I should take an other system designer ;-)

Don't mix-up sayc matters in a WOS

 

>But

 

>So I concluded I'd have to play it like this

 

>pass = 16+

>1-level = 11-15

>2-level = 5-10 1-suiters (5-6 cards)

>1C = 0-9

 

>But to play it like this, I might as well swap pass and 1C and play a normal strong club >system!!!

 

again 4 bids left for the 11-15. Apart of the fact if you can handle the 5-10p. 1-suiters correctly.

 

---------

The 13+ Pass is compelled by necessity. This range should be treated as well as the main range.

Otherwise you will create a paradox. Taking away 1 or 2 bids of the main range is no alternative.

Apart of the fact if symmetry is wanted in the openings after Pass.

 

Regards,

Marcel

[Antoine Fourrière]

No, it shouldn't work.

Over pass showing 13+, your opponents still aren't favorites to have game without a major fit (even the weaker 12-14 notrump doesn't bury that often a game), although it may happen one time out of twenty, and they should use a rather distributionnal overcalling system such as

1♣ = 4 spades

1♦ = 4 hearts without 4 spades

1♥ = 5 hearts without 4 spades

1♠ = 5 spades

1N = 5 hearts and 4 spades

to allow RHO to raise quickly the bidding.

Indeed, pass showing either 0-5 or 13+ wouldn't be as bad, because your opponents are now bound to bid normally. And I wouldn't criticize either pass showing 0-6 or 16+, or pass showing 8+ and four spades, because both are constructive (for your side), disruptive (for their side), and anti-destructive (they cannot play 0-17 overcalls for fear it is their hand).

[DrTodd13]

In principle, two-way (weak/intermediate or strong) pass or 1C systems ought to prevent the rampant destructive interference that is a knee jerk reaction to precision systems. However, from my experience, even though the weak/intermediate option is more likely than the strong option, the opps still think you're trying to pull something over on them. They ignore the weak option and treat it as a precisionish opening and respond in their old time ways. To me, those overcalls you get when you play precision are just annoying and in many cases bad-spirited and though they should be prevented in a two-way system where theoretically opps should bid constructively (since they could have game) they never do so the two-way system is as annoying as playing precision.

 

Todd

[Free]

I have mixed feelings of a 'weak' strong ♣: 1♣=13+HCP for example. On the one hand, all your limited openings become even more precise, and 1♣ doesn't mean "game for us, no game for them". This should eliminate lots of agressive overcalling, but on the other hand like Todd said, I don't think people will do that!

When I play against PC I intervene a lot more than after a natural 1♣ opening, but less than after a strong 1♣ opening. It's just because, for them, it's just annoying, and they still have to show the difference between their strong hands and weaker hands. Against strong ♣ I play 1M = 0-3 cards, which is very frequent, and opps don't know anything. This however can't be played against PC...

 

To the guys with the 2-way strong-weak openings: can't you play the fert 2-way? 0-7 OR nat (or whatever normal meaning you would give to that bid)? Something like:

 

Pass = 13+

1♣ = 2+♣ or 0-7 fert

1♦ = 4+♦

1M = 5+M

[whereagles]

Opposite a 16+ as opponent you normally don't have game prospects. Reason for all those different kind of defences.

Opposite 13+, game prospects are not excluded at all for the opponent. So your defence tools should be completely different.

 

But the main issue still remains:

0-7 frequency 28,58% (less something for A+ any K)

8-12 frequency 44,62% (+ " )

13+ frequency 26,80%

 

compared with your proposal

0-9 frequency 56,23% / 23,37% = 1suiter 5-10p.)

11-15 frequency 34,00%

16+ frequency 9,77%

 

I will continue furtheron.

 

>2. The 1-level openings, albeit frequent, truncate too early. An 8-12 hand cannot afford >to make jump rebids due to lack of playing strenght. I'm talking about auctions like this:

 

>1H 1S

>3m

 

>In sayc this is a hand around 18-20 points with 54 and 4-5 losers.

>In precision you'd have around 14-15 points with 55 and 5 losers.

>In an 8-12 opening you'd need something like a 65 to have 5 losers.

 

Sorry??

Main characteristic of the 8-12 issue is that

- occurs most so use good skils here,

- many times points are ca. 20/20 divided, so reach as quick as possible a satisf. contract

(if not the optional one, no problem, you gave the opponent no chance to investigate their one)

- therefore partner gives a describing bid too (up to 13 points -no problem- a relay is not necessary always!)

 

Therefore your opening bid has to carry already a good definition primary and I mean not the suit only.

Reason why you shall smart for the fact that your range 11-15 contains 4 openingbids only for all the shapes.

 

>But

>So I concluded I'd have to play it like this

 

>pass = 16+

>1-level = 11-15

>2-level = 5-10 1-suiters (5-6 cards)

>1C = 0-9

Opposite a pass = 13+: defenses are very simple:

 

Pass: balanced/semi-balanced 13+ or 18+ any hand

1-level: 8-17 5 card suit

2-level: 5-10 1-suiters

 

I don't see the opps having too much of a hard time. Actually, I see the forcing pass side having far much more trouble, because they allow opps a cheap opening in any suit.

 

8-12 openings: the point is as follows. What good is to open 1x 8-12 if you don't have any playing strenght to bid again??

[the hog]

Three points

1) A 1C fert is a total waste of time. Play 1H.

 

2) 8-12 openings: the point is as follows. What good is to open 1x 8-12 if you don't have any playing strenght to bid again??

Marcel is correct. You have totally missed the point of the 8-12 range! This is the most common range - it has absolutely nothing to do with being able to bid again - you do have a partner you know. What is difficult for opponents is to come in over a sequence like 1D 2S where we have a guaranteed 8 card fit and anywhere from 8 to 20 or so hcp.

 

3) Of course defences over a 13+ pass are easy - this is the weakest part of the system, just like a 1C bid is in Precision. What you fail to do is to look at the system as an entity.

[1eyedjack]

Opposite a pass = 13+: defenses are very simple:

 

Pass: balanced/semi-balanced 13+ or 18+ any hand

1-level: 8-17 5 card suit

2-level: 5-10 1-suiters

Sorry, could you just explain what action to take with:

 

0-4 points, 1-suited

0-7 points, 5 card suit

0-12 points, balanced or semi-balanced

0-17 points, 2-suited or 3-suited

 

and

 

Meanings of 1NT and 2NT "overcall" of a strong pass

?

 

Thanks

[the hog]

Jack,

When we played against strong pass the 1N overcall shows 16-18, possibly unbalanced. 1C was a 13-15 balanced hand and other bids were "overcalls". Jumps were "funny twos". Whereagles' posted defense is unsound - too many loopholes

 

Interesting is how to play over a 1H fert.

Bids are opening bids, not overcalls. 1N = 12-14, possibly off shape,but <3H

2C was a transfer to H. Others natural. X showed bal 3-4H.

 

At least one pair I know played antiferts - a 1N overcall of a 1H fert showed any 0-10!! A bit weird, but they had fun.

 

Best fun is when strong pass meets strong pass, as has happened in National open teams. Have seen one auction. P P P P - first 2 passes showed 13+. 3rd pass was after loooong hesitation and guy in pass out seat had 1 knave only.

[Antoine Fourrière]

"Denmark took the bronze medals (?). Poland, which won the event, was not

using any forcing pass systems (?)."

Yes, all the Polish pairs used the Polish Club that year.

Poland also won in 1978 with a four-man squad which played only the Polish Club.

 

"To the guys with the 2-way strong-weak openings: can't you play the fert 2-way? 0-7 OR nat (or whatever normal meaning you would give to that bid)? "

In 1981, John Collings and Paul Hackett for Britain (along with Lodge-Sowter and Sheehan-Rose) finished second in the European Championships. At that time, they played 1♣ either 0-8 or clubs or 20-22 with any 4333 . At the ensuing Bermuda Bowl, they played 1♦ either 0-8 or diamonds or 20-22 with any 4333 and finished fifth in the eight-team round-robin, barely failing to qualify for the semi-finals. Pass simply showed 9-12.

[whereagles]

Marcel is correct. You have totally missed the point of the 8-12 range! This is the most common range - it has absolutely nothing to do with being able to bid again - you do have a partner you know.

I didn't miss any point whatsoever. I simply went deeper into the consequences of openings in the 8-12 range. That 8-12 is the most common range and allows you to strike first blow much more often is a no-brainer. The non-trivial part is to be able to do something relevant with the information you got from pard, and whether or not he can continue to help you.

 

What I mean is this. An 8-12 1H opener has the same range as a precision 11-15 1H, and, although the precision opener is like 10 times more precise than a sayc 1H opener, it is still relatively undefined. In a competitive auction you need extra accuracy, and some of it comes from the fact that opener has enough playing strenght to make free bids. With 8-12 you hardly ever have a rebid, while with 11-15 that's more likely. In other words, if you open 11-15 you'll be able to help partner more often. Another disadvantage of 8-12 is opening leads. An 8-12 natural 1-level opening is more likely to be made in an empty suit than an 11-15 one.

 

So.. what I want to say is it's not enough to say "let's play 8-12 because then you transmit information more often". You have to think ahead. If you do that, you'll realize not all are roses. If 8-12 openings were so advantageous as you think they are, everybody would be playing them at top level, and that is simply not happening!

 

Perhaps in the future players will find ways of improving on 8-12 openings. I myself have a couple of ideas worth trying. But as it is, in practice a lot of good players remain unconvinced of them offering a clear-cut advantage.