An annoying, petty thing

[Phil]

♠KJT9x ♥xx ♦AKx ♣xxx

 

NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:

 

"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"

 

You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.

 

No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.

[rogerclee]

I think pass is bad anyway, a suit contract is just so likely to outplay 1N when we are really concentrated in two suits.

 

Also 3N as 13-15 with 2(443) is basically unplayable to me, I would never bid it even if that was my agreement. Your partner might have felt the same way!

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

Did you ask what he would rebid after you did bid 1S-1NT-any-?

 

It seems that he has no rebid.

 

I would have rebid with your hand. Partner may have a long suit and we cannot bid it unless you bid over that forcing NT bid.

 

Regards,

Robert

[ArtK78]

If responder cannot have a game forcing hand when he bids 1NT, why don't you change the meaning of your 1NT response to semi-forcing? Whether it is right to pass 1NT is another matter altogether.

 

If you are playing "forcing" 1NT responses, I agree with your partner first. He expects you to take another bid. The fact that he should have done something else initially is not relevant.

 

This situation is similar to a psyche situation. In my opinion, whether the partner of the psyche bidder could have done anything to prevent a disaster after the psyche is not relevant. All bad consequences that follow a psyche are the fault of the psyche bidder (unless partner does something truly outrageous).

[olegru]

If I am forced, I am forced.

It is not my business for now what partner wants to achieve using forcing 1NT instead of some other system bid. My duty is make another bid and let Partner to clarify.

[aguahombre]

No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.

The strong feeling I have is about calling 1NT forcing. Even if pard could not have the hand he had, your RHO deserves to know.

 

Certainly you can do whatever you want i.e., violate agreements by passing a forcing bid. But here you did so because of an inference or more inferences which make 1NT in-fact only semi-forcing in your eyes.

[pooltuna]

♠KJT9x ♥xx ♦AKx ♣xxx

 

NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:

 

"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"

 

You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.

 

No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.

somehow it seems wrong to use forcing (or semi-forcing in your case :) ) 1NT with a GF hand. There should normally be other choices.

[Phil]

To me this is akin to passing any forcing bid. There are inferences available to us through our agreements that make certain calls more 'forcing' than others.

 

Ever passed a reverse?

[hrothgar]

If responder cannot have a game forcing hand when he bids 1NT, why don't you change the meaning of your 1NT response to semi-forcing? Whether it is right to pass 1NT is another matter altogether.

 

If you are playing "forcing" 1NT responses, I agree with your partner first. He expects you to take another bid. The fact that he should have done something else initially is not relevant.

 

This situation is similar to a psyche situation. In my opinion, whether the partner of the psyche bidder could have done anything to prevent a disaster after the psyche is not relevant. All bad consequences that follow a psyche are the fault of the psyche bidder (unless partner does something truly outrageous).

For a change, I am in complete agreement with Art.

 

You passed a forcing bid.

You made your bed. Now you have to lie in it.

 

It could very well be that taking this position is the right move with this hand. Hard to say without knowing precisely what kind of response structure your partner imposed on you.

[bid_em_up]

It's called 1 No Trump Forcing for a reason, not "1N Forcing unless I opened a crappy balanced hand and just decide that I'm going to pass it".

 

Sorry, I just don't get the reasoning behind agreeing to play a system, then deliberately ignoring what you know you should do with this hand.

 

Just curious, did you also review your system about what partner does with

 

x Kx xxx QJ10xxxx

 

at the same time? (ok, so maybe you have some systemic bid for this hand that I don't know about, but for me, it's a 1N forcing response).

 

You get all the blame here, Phil.

[nige1]

♠KJT9x ♥xx ♦AKx ♣xxx

NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:

"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"

You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.

No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.

For this man hath penance done

And penance more will do.

IMO:

Partner's systemic aberration seems minor. Yours seems major.

If you don't like a convention like 1N = forcing then don't play it :)

If you agree to a convention but depart from it and it works, then you may expect congratulations for your inspired view :)

If your attempt at the brilliancy prize misfires, then you grovel -- no excuses, no attempts to shift the blame :)

So you do well to confess here and suffer inevitable public humiliation as penance :) :) :)

[jdonn]

If you pass a forcing bid don't blame partner when it doesn't work! Especially if it just amounts to you wanting to change your system and deciding to do so during the hand. Anyway it was also a terrible choice here since a 5-2 spade fit will play so well.

[pirate22]

so with "bid em up" shown hand--1sp--2cl is non forcing,or 2d or 2h.still non forcing,

crazy system.................

[manudude03]

so with "bid em up" shown hand--1sp--2cl is non forcing,or 2d or 2h.still non forcing,

crazy system.................

No, he meant that that hand bids 1NT.

 

FWIW, I used to play a system with non-forcing 2/1s, it wasn't unplayable by any means. GF hands went via 1NT (forcing!).

[Echognome]

As someone who prefers semi-forcing NT, I have sympathy. But as others have said, if you agree to play a forcing NT, then you should follow through.

 

I don't understand Aquahombre's comments at all. There was no concealed agreement or inference that was available to Phil that wasn't available to opponents. In fact, he passed and it turned out to be a disaster.

[kenberg]

Just out of curiosity: Assuming that you are still on speaking and playing terms, what did you decide for the future? If many 15 counts will respond 1NT it seems you do not want to allow for inventive passes. Something's gotta give.

 

Me, I also would have opened and I wouldn't have passed even if partner seldom/never will have a 15 count. If 1NT is the right contract that's just too bad.

 

That being said, my partners are always allowed to do what they think is right. Even when, as here, it clearly (?) isn't. I have my own eccentricities.

[aguahombre]

I don't understand Aquahombre's comments at all.  There was no concealed agreement or inference that was available to Phil that wasn't available to opponents.  In fact, he passed and it turned out to be a disaster.

O.K. , if it never happens again. Since it is announced as forcing (announcement required in Phil's jurisdiction), it feels wrong to do so when intending to pass --but since that is your agreement, fine. The second time it happens, the announcement is contrary to your agreements and/or experience. As mentioned before, RHO gets to know if, by your agreements, the auction will come back around to him.

 

The fact that passing did not work out well this time is not relevent to what I feel strongly about.

[nige1]

I have my own eccentricities.

I don't believe it -- Ken is just trying to make Phil feel better.

[rogerclee]

To me this is akin to passing any forcing bid. There are inferences available to us through our agreements that make certain calls more 'forcing' than others.

What hand in your agreements would bid a forcing NT but would not be a semiforcing 1N in a standard system?

 

What hand would bid a semiforcing 1N in a standard system but would not bid a forcing NT in your system?

 

If the answer is none, then your forcing 1N is identical to my semiforcing 1N. Add to that that sometimes you pass 1N when you think it's right, then guess what, you are playing a semiforcing NT!

[Phil]

To me this is akin to passing any forcing bid. There are inferences available to us through our agreements that make certain calls more 'forcing' than others.

What hand in your agreements would bid a forcing NT but would not be a semiforcing 1N in a standard system?

 

What hand would bid a semiforcing 1N in a standard system but would not bid a forcing NT in your system?

 

If the answer is none, then your forcing 1N is identical to my semiforcing 1N. Add to that that sometimes you pass 1N when you think it's right, then guess what, you are playing a semiforcing NT!

I know.

 

Wish most of the posters wouldn't have taken this so seriously. The title is there for a reason - I'm not really looking for justification nor less sympathy. We actually both laughed a little afterward.

 

I too play a semi-forcing 1N in most of my partnerships, and just decided to experiment a little. Looks like he did the same thing.

 

Yes, we are still on speaking terms jeez lol.

 

As far as the future is concerned, I doubt I'm passing this 1N (with him anyway) but I also doubt he's monkeying around with 1N with a 15!

[peachy]

Passing a forcing 1NT is masterminding. The fact that your partner did it too is irrelevant.

[junyi_zhu]

♠KJT9x ♥xx ♦AKx ♣xxx

 

NV/NV you open 1♠ and pard bids a forcing 1N. You mentally review your system:

 

"3N is 13-15 with 2(443)"

 

You decide to pass. Partner has a 15 with 2344 and makes a snipe about not passing forcing bids. I politely bring up HIS systemic responses to 1♠.

 

No need to respond unless you have strong feelings about such matters.

With 15, I really like 2/1 instead of 1NT even if I play a forcing 1NT.

[ggwhiz]

Just pas with a hand that is only worth a 1♠ overcall instead of an opening bid and you avoid this problem.

 

If 1nt can be a game force, you owe your opponents an alert before experimenting with it.

[mycroft]

Two of Jeff's Imperious Rules of Bridge:

"If you psych and your side gets a bad result, it's your fault, regardless of how moronic an action partner took later on." - I'd say passing forcing 1NT is a psych, and add "before" in "later on". But more specifically:

"Don't pass forcing bids. Your exquisite judgement may get these right more often then not, but there'll be payback on later hands when partner jumps fearing your passing his forcing bid."

One of mine:

"When you've made a decision, stick with it. Sure, upgrade or downgrade, but if you thought your hand was an opener when you started, keep bidding it as if it is." It's almost always wrong to say "yeah, well, really it's not" the second round, even if it *was* wrong the first round.

Of course, another of Jeff's rules is:

"If something strange is going on, double the Israeli."

so I wouldn't take anything *too* seriously.

[jonottawa]

I hate his 1N (on 15????) slightly more than your pass. Then HE starts the sniping? Uh, no.

 

He made the first mistake. He made the more egregious mistake. He started whining first. He loses the ATB.