pass is weakest option?

[straube]

What's the best general rule of thumb? When we have suit agreement as in...

 

1H (1S) 2S (3C) ?

 

is pass the weakest option or is 3H?

 

I think pass myself because we may not really want to play 3H. Thoughts?

[jillybean]

I agree, a non forcing pass is the weakest bid here.

[CSGibson]

If you accept the fact that you and your partner are not going to be letting the opponents play a contract less than 3♥, then it makes sense to bid 3♥ right away when you are weak, as you take up their bidding room, and a cue-bid for them on hands where you and partner have less combined strength. Pass should show a hand with more than minimum values and some defensive strength, where you are not sure what your best option is, X should be penalty-oriented, and 3♦ should show a natural 2nd suit, trying to get partner's help in deciding how high to compete, IMO.

[mohitz]

I don't understand why you want pass as NF. If there was no interference, 2♠ committed to at least 3♥. I don't see why things should change now. Given that pass is forcing, pass showing extras is better because

 

i) When we are weak, opponents are more likely to buy the contract. Bidding 3♥ immediately gives them less room to work out their best strain/level.

 

ii) When we have extras, we are more likely to buy the contract. Passing gives us space to work out our best level and perhaps strain too.

[straube]

I don't understand why you want pass as NF. If there was no interference, 2♠ committed to at least 3♥. I don't see why things should change now. Given that pass is forcing, pass showing extras is better because

 

i) When we are weak, opponents are more likely to buy the contract. Bidding 3♥ immediately gives them less room to work out their best strain/level.

 

ii) When we have extras, we are more likely to buy the contract. Passing gives us space to work out our best level and perhaps strain too.

 

 

I think you and Chris are right. But since you asked, I think there's at least some compensation for playing pass as nf. Let's say opener has QJx Axxxx AQ xxx. He may not like his hand so much with spade values suspect and even clubs positioned badly. A nf pass would at least sometimes let us avoid owning the contract. This might be especially true if the cue bid denies a fourth trump (like Robson/Segal play).

[mike777]

I think you and Chris are right. But since you asked, I think there's at least some compensation for playing pass as nf. Let's say opener has QJx Axxxx AQ xxx. He may not like his hand so much with spade values suspect and even clubs positioned badly. A nf pass would at least sometimes let us avoid owning the contract. This might be especially true if the cue bid denies a fourth trump (like Robson/Segal play).

 

 

 

 

 

 

so x here shows what....doubt .......gives partner a choice.....pard can never not bid 3h if you pass.

 

 

1) option one...dont open crappy hands such as you suggest

2) if you do always then pard bidding 2s is not crap....

 

you cannot play option three....you open on crap as you suggest and pard bids 2s on crap.....

[paulg]

This is a place for a meta-agreement as there are many situations when you are forcing to a certain level and find the opposition bids below it.

 

I have always played that bidding to the 'final' point is the weakest action, essentially extending the principle of fast arrival. I don't think that there is a standard but would expect that this method would top the poll.

 

I know that Michael Rosenberg typically plays that pass is the weakest OR strongest hand, with bidding showing average values. Technically this is probably better.

 

The problem with pass being the weakest action is defining what bidding actually shows. However it is a playable method and I know many who use it.

 

Finally, in the auction given, if you accept that you are in a 'forcing to 3♥' situation, Larry Cohen said that there is value in playing double as penalties and pass as the game try.

 

This is all a long way of saying you need to agree. This time Mikeh may now post the succinct version :)

[gwnn]

standard is 3H is weakest. jlogic had a blog post about something like

 

Pass=minimum bal

X=unbalanced maximum

3H=minimum with an offensive hand

others=non min unbalanced

 

The above was for something like

1H-1S-p-2H

x-?

 

But I applied it here with some modifications :-) and playing x as balanced max is jlogic approved also

[Free]

Your partner forced to at least 3♥. We're still below 3♥ so pass is forcing. This implies bidding 3♥ is the weakest action. Simple bridge.

[P_Marlowe]

Assuming 2S to be a limit+ raise for hearts, Pass is forcing,

2S forced your side to play at least 3H and commited your side

to play at least 3H => If they intervene below 3H, you are in

a forcing pass situation.

 

From this followes 3H is your weakest bid, pass showes no clear

direction, and some interest in going for blood.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Viren169]

What's the best general rule of thumb? When we have suit agreement as in...

 

1H (1S) 2S (3C) ?

 

is pass the weakest option or is 3H?

 

I think pass myself because we may not really want to play 3H. Thoughts?

 

This is a grey area and depends on partnership agreement. I play it as follows:

 

In the above example, we have forced the auction to at least 3H, there is no need to assume we will be better off in the opponents playing in a contract below 3H (undoubled). Hence pass should be forcing with either a weak or strong hand allowing responder to clarify thier hand. This also gives responder some further room for investigating whether this contract should be played in p/s, game, slam etc or if this contract belongs to the opponents doubled or undoubled (above 3S).

 

So now a 3H bid by the opener in the above example should show a better than opening hand (ie an extra trump etc).

 

BR

Viren

[mfa1010]

Standard expert methods are 3♥ is weakest option and pass more encouraging. Some play something different (and/or fancy) but that goes for just about any bidding sequence, I guess.

[WGF_Flame]

pass is forcing here.

[WGF_Flame]

I think the interesting question should be what to bid with a defensive minimum hand without a trump stack. say A10XXX K9X AJX 10X

should double show this hand, or double should serious defense ? if double shows great defense then can we pass with the example hand allowing partner to express his opinion on the partnership ODR ?

[mtvesuvius]

I generally play that if we can still play on the two level, bidding 2 of our suit is the weakest, and pass is in the middle. If we must play at the three level though, pass is the weakest.

[straube]

standard is 3H is weakest. jlogic had a blog post about something like

 

Pass=minimum bal

X=unbalanced maximum

3H=minimum with an offensive hand

others=non min unbalanced

 

The above was for something like

1H-1S-p-2H

x-?

 

But I applied it here with some modifications :-) and playing x as balanced max is jlogic approved also

 

 

Well, there is something to trying to tell partner about how keen we are about playing in our suit. It prepares partner for further interference, for one. 3H as minimum but proud of hearts and pass as minimum but less certain about hearts communicates that. But I think the majority here are right and we can't reserve two bids to show minimum hands.

[gwnn]

Why not? We will 99% of the time not want to play slam, but at least 10% of the time we'd have liked to doubled them. It is true that we have been committed to the 3 level but it does not automatically mean that 3H makes, maybe it is a bad contract and 3Cx is where we belong. I think "my" structure maximises the accuracy of doubling them at the cost of the dubious re-tries and counter counter game trial tries.

[gwnn]

I mean when we have a max but not a super max we can just bud game and we have a super max or some nice red 5-5 we can just bid 3 or 4 diamonds.

[Gerben42]

With my partner 2♠ commits us to 3♥, so bidding 3♥ directly is the weakest option. The question is, what DOES pass show, especially how much defense so that we might reach 3♣X.

[mfa1010]

With my partner 2♠ commits us to 3♥, so bidding 3♥ directly is the weakest option. The question is, what DOES pass show, especially how much defense so that we might reach 3♣X.

We play that 3♥ is minimum but pass is only slightly encouraging if there is another way to show values. This treatment is especially useful after (1-level) overcalls that might be complete rubbish.

I don't think much focus should be on doubling them. Either player can double for penalties and it happens but not very often.

[Zelandakh]

I think this is simply an agreement issue. Quite a few players round here have the agreement that the cue raise sets up forcing passes. I know others that think this agreement is kamikaze and loses imps/MP on average. If forcing passes are not on then it is normal to play a pass as a minimum hand with a low ODR. This seems to be the most logical method which allows partner to make a reasonable judgement about whether to pass, double or compete further. I do not have a strong opinion between whether forcing passes should be on or not (a small preference for off, at least at IMPS) but it does affect which hands can cue bid and which have to use a different route.

[mikeh]

Standard expert methods are 3♥ is weakest option and pass more encouraging. Some play something different (and/or fancy) but that goes for just about any bidding sequence, I guess.

This.

 

And I agree with the earlier point about pass being forcing. Basic fp theory is that when our own auction has created a force to a certain level, all passes below that level are forcing. This is a universal rule as far as I am aware

[OleBerg]

Since you asked for a rule of thumb, I'll definitely go with the forcing pass, for reasons weel-explained by others.

 

It is only if you have the energy for very specific agreements, I can see an idée in a non-forcing pass.

 

Lets use the sequence you desribe:

 

If 2♠ shows exactly three-card-support, and the opponents are bidding naturally (i.e. 3♣ does not promise or indicate spade-support), then there could be a point in being able to sell out. Our combined hands could have detoriated so much during the bidding, that it makes sense. Especially if we are vulnerable.

 

You would still be able to show the bad hand that suggests defending (pass), a bad that wants to compete (3♥), a penalty (X) and a game-try (3♦).

 

But had they bid diamonds, or if partner can have four, or if 3♣ shows spade support, or if we are white vs red, I'd much prefer the forcing pass.