Forcing Pass?

[awm]

1♦ - 2♣ - 3♣(1) - Pass

3♦ - X(2) - Pass - 3♥

Pass - Pass - 4♦ - 4♥

Pass - Pass - ???

 

(1) Limit raise or better of diamonds

(2) Takeout

 

MP scoring. Is this a forcing auction for you? Do you think it's a forcing pass auction for everyone?

[rogerclee]

I wouldn't want to guess at what other people will think, but to me this is clearly not forcing.

[kayin801]

Our side hasn't made any action that would even make this remotely a forcing pass. Opener has signed off, and responder has merely competed thereafter. Pass then 4♦ compared to XX (or any action for that matter) then 4♦ seems weaker and therefore logically non-forcing.

 

They are acting fishy but I don't think we can create a forcing pass simply because the opponents smell funny. The 2♣ bidder probably has a nice hand and our actions have probably led the heart bidder to think overcaller has sufficient ♦ shortness to compete further. Maybe they had a 3.5♥ bid, who knows?

 

It's not even close to a forcing pass to me.

[JLOGIC]

Of course not.

[jillybean]

My partner and I have adopted Neil Kimelman's FP rules.

 

 

i) Besides hands where the partnership is in a game forcing auction, forcing pass also applies when one hand opens and the other hand shows at least invitational values.

 

So yes, it is forcing for us.

[dake50]

Opener + limit+ ->F-pass ON.

Does marching to the FP drummer step into cowpie?

Crescent moon rarity.

Does the discipline of FP: 'partner trusts what I do;

I trust him' win? Astoundingly.!!

[gnasher]

My partner and I have adopted Neil Kimelman's FP rules.

 

 

i) Besides hands where the partnership is in a game forcing auction, forcing pass also applies when one hand opens and the other hand shows at least invitational values.

 

So yes, it is forcing for us.

 

There ought to be a bit more to that rule: "... and it's still possible for us to have game values."

[Free]

After the takeout Dbl, responder passed and bid 4♦ later on. Imo this is stronger than bidding 4♦ immediately (which would be preemptive). On the other hand, responder can also RDbl to show extras and bid 4♦ afterwards. This should be even stronger. Since responder had a stronger option available, this isn't a forcing pass situation.

[helene_t]

There ought to be a bit more to that rule: "... and it's still possible for us to have game values."

It always is (unless we have passed out a part score and they reopen afterwards). In the given auction, we certainly could have game values if Kathryn's rule applies throughout the auction. OTOH with the same auction but without overcaller's double we could not, as we passed out 3♦. Then our pass of 3♦ would deny game values. As the auction is, our pass in 2nd round does not have to show weakness. It probably does to those of us who are not in an FP (as we would use XX here to establish an FP), but if we are in an FP then I think it's different.

[OleBerg]

I don't think many players would find it forcing, and neither would I.

 

 

I do not, however, find the idée of it being forcing completely unreasonable.

 

The first thing to be determined in this regard, is the difference betweem the actual auction, and an auction where responder bids 4♦ immidiately after the double. If the delayed raise means: "My hand was not worth an invitational 4♦, but I want to compete", then I think, that it should clearly not be forcing".

 

On the other hand, if the bidding philosophy is this: "A direct 4♦ is in no way invitational, but simply says that responder is going to compete anyway", then a delayed 4♦ should signal a hand that had considered defending something at the 3-level (or 4♣). In this context, a forcing pass is not unreasonable, but it would obviously require some pre-discussion, and both partners being on the same wavelength.

[OleBerg]

After the takeout Dbl, responder passed and bid 4♦ later on. Imo this is stronger than bidding 4♦ immediately (which would be preemptive). On the other hand, responder can also RDbl to show extras and bid 4♦ afterwards. This should be even stronger. Since responder had a stronger option available, this isn't a forcing pass situation.

 

A reasonable, and normal, intepretation, but it need not be that way. The XX might as well be akin to:

 

1♥ - (pass) - 2♥ - (pass)

Pass - (X) - XX

 

Which in my book can be weaker than a bid. And it doesn't create a force to 3♥, so the XX of 3♦ need not create a force to 4♦.

 

I am definitely not saying my way is better, just that it is not an unreasonable option. Again, pre-disussion is needed.

[gnasher]

It always is (unless we have passed out a part score and they reopen afterwards). In the given auction, we certainly could have game values if Kathryn's rule applies throughout the auction. OTOH with the same auction but without overcaller's double we could not, as we passed out 3♦. Then our pass of 3♦ would deny game values. As the auction is, our pass in 2nd round does not have to show weakness. It probably does to those of us who are not in an FP (as we would use XX here to establish an FP), but if we are in an FP then I think it's different.

 

Didn't one of us make a non-forcing 3♦ bid, and the other make a non-forcing 4♦ bid?

[helene_t]

Didn't one of us make a non-forcing 3♦ bid, and the other make a non-forcing 4♦ bid?

Yes sr, 4♦ must be NF, missed that.

[barryallen]

1♦ - 2♣ - 3♣(1) - Pass

3♦ - X(2) - Pass - 3♥

Pass - Pass - 4♦ - 4♥

Pass - Pass - ???

 

(1) Limit raise or better of diamonds

(2) Takeout

 

MP scoring. Is this a forcing auction for you? Do you think it's a forcing pass auction for everyone?

 

Opener could easily be sitting there with two of the top ♦ honours wondering whether they can take 4 tricks in ♦ and ♠ to get the contract down. Partner has forced the opposition into game and it looks like the answer will lie in his hand. When partner makes that 4♦ bid he must realise the subsequent consequences and already have the answer to the problem he has created?

 

Partner has had the opportunity to clarify his hand further but has chosen not to do so. I am not saying any of the bids are wrong, but partner has placed the partnership across the Rubicon with the possibility opener could provide limited assistance?

[han]

It makes no sense to me to play this double as forcing. As I see it, there are two likely ends of this auction: 4H passed out or 4H doubled. By making pass forcing you take away one of these ends, and in return you get nothing.

[OleBerg]

It makes no sense to me to play this double as forcing. As I see it, there are two likely ends of this auction: 4H passed out or 4H doubled. By making pass forcing you take away one of these ends, and in return you get nothing.

 

You get something. You get openers option of suggesting bidding 5♦, because the auction has showed it could right, regardless of former minimum bids. It's not very likely to be of much use, but neither is the option of passing 4♥. (All this, in the context desribed in my previous post; delayed 4♦ stronger than direct 4♦.)

 

Again, it might not be best, but there is some point to it.

[bluecalm]

Besides hands where the partnership is in a game forcing auction, forcing pass also applies when one hand opens and the other hand shows at least invitational values.

 

Weak rules. I am sorry but it doesn't make sense to play that way.

For example:

1H - 1S - 2S(limit+) 3S

4H - 4S - pass would be forcing here which is beyond bad (and the reason some parterships adopt 2S as exactly limit raise and 2NT as forcing raise (or other way around))

[Free]

A reasonable, and normal, intepretation, but it need not be that way. The XX might as well be akin to:

 

1♥ - (pass) - 2♥ - (pass)

Pass - (X) - XX

 

Which in my book can be weaker than a bid. And it doesn't create a force to 3♥, so the XX of 3♦ need not create a force to 4♦.

 

I am definitely not saying my way is better, just that it is not an unreasonable option. Again, pre-disussion is needed.

If I understand this correctly, you play RDbl as a suggestion to bid 4♦ but without any force, bidding 4♦ immediately is probably preemptive, so pass followed by 4♦ should be forcing right? This would mean you're in a forcing pass situation if opps bid 4♥.

 

It's an interesting concept, I'll have to look into it.

[OleBerg]

If I understand this correctly, you play RDbl as a suggestion to bid 4♦ but without any force, bidding 4♦ immediately is probably preemptive, so pass followed by 4♦ should be forcing right? This would mean you're in a forcing pass situation if opps bid 4♥.

 

It's an interesting concept, I'll have to look into it.

 

Not exactly what I meant.

 

XX = Inviting partner to double with length/strength in the suit they bid. Partner can compete to 4♦ too, but selling out at the 3-level is possible. May be followed by another forcing bid.

4♦ Direct = To play.

4♦ Delayed = 4♦ is bid to be made, based on some strength, therefore pass is forcing if they bid. The bid doesn't have this meaning because it is a priority, but as consequence of why we passed 3♦X. (We passed 3♦ because we might want to defend something, doubled, at the 3-level.)

3♥/3♠ = So far, scouting for 3NT, may be followed by another forcing bid.

4♣ = Inviting 5♦. May be followed by another forcing bid.

 

Surely I need my medication now. :D

[Phil]

I would never take this pass as forcing. I'm surprised the OP would even post this.

 

@Jilly re: Neil Kimelman's rules - its reasonable to play a FP when one hand invites, and we are vulnerable, however, here opener has signed off, and both partners have bid the limit of their hand, so why do we have to choose between 4♥x'd and 5♦?

[awm]

Here's the rest of the story regarding this hand...

 

This took place in a local sectional tournament. My wife (the 4♥ bidder) was playing with a student in the B/C/D pairs. There was a very noticeable break in tempo by opener prior to his pass over 4♥, and responder balanced 5♦. The director was called to the table prior to the end of the auction.

 

The director was annoyed to have been called, stating that it was very obvious that this is a forcing pass auction and so defending 4♥ was never a LA. He indicated that he would never make a ruling on this board regardless of the contents of the players hands, and made derogatory comments about my wife's bridge knowledge.

 

We thought this was uncalled for and are filing a recorder form about the director (much good may it do; this guy directs almost all local events and we have complained about him on many prior occasions). While the director's rudeness was obviously a problem, I was curious whether his opinion that this was "obviously a forcing pass situation" would be held by a sizable proportion of bridge players. This poll seems to indicate what I would've assumed... not really.

 

The result on the board was not really at issue; it turns out that opener had about the most obvious double of 4♥ imaginable (AKxx KJ9 Jxx xxx) and both 4♥ and 5♦ were failing.

[jillybean]

I would never take this pass as forcing. I'm surprised the OP would even post this.

 

@Jilly re: Neil Kimelman's rules - its reasonable to play a FP when one hand invites, and we are vulnerable, however, here opener has signed off, and both partners have bid the limit of their hand, so why do we have to choose between 4♥x'd and 5♦?

Good question and I am following this thread closely. We have only agreed on FP rules in the past few days and have a lot of fine tuning to do.

[Phil]

We thought this was uncalled for and are filing a recorder form about the director (much good may it do; this guy directs almost all local events and we have complained about him on many prior occasions).

 

Adam, if you want to send me a PM about who this is, please do so. I have a few ideas.

 

File a recorder form if you wish, but this won't accomplish anything. This is a disciplinary matter and needs to be brought to the attention of the Unit and the District; maybe at a national level.

[jdeegan]

:rolleyes: Simple rule all the good players use: if we bid a game to make and they bid on, the pass is forcing. That is not the case here. We stopped at 4♦. Lot's of tournament directors are not good bridge players themselves.