Forcing Pass

[Cascade]

We had this auction:

 

(1♥) 1♠ (Pass) Pass

(Dbl) Pass (Pass) 2♦

(Pass) Pass (3NT) All Pass

 

The 3NT bidder had passed with a 16 count with five spades.

 

At the end of the hand he said opener had to reopen (so there was no danger of missing game). He claimed this is "just bridge".

 

However it seems to me that you can't successfully use this tactic unless you don't disclose the forcing nature of the pass to the opponents.

 

If you disclose then fourth hand with a good hand and can pass trapping opener into doubling (or taking some other action) and there is a chance of a penalty.

 

Is forcing pass in this situation really "just bridge"?

[aguahombre]

IMO, it can't be forcing without disclosure. However, there are forum posters whose replies on other threads make it clear that they never pass out an overcall ---and good luck on finding a pair who will disclose so you can try your trap.

[gnasher]

The relevant question is whether, and how, the regulations in your jurisdiction require the opponents to disclose this agreement. Why do you care whether it's "just bridge" or "just barking mad"? (Unless, of course, the rules in New Zealand say "Don't alert calls that are 'just bridge'.")

 

Since you ask, though, I think it's normal that when you play negative doubles opener is expected to reopen with shortage in the suit overcalled, and when you have five cards in the suit it's "just arithmetic" to infer that opener will usually have such shortage. It's not normal, but also not unheard of, to play the pass as unconditionally forcing.

[Cascade]

The relevant question is whether, and how, the regulations in your jurisdiction require the opponents to disclose this agreement. Why do you care whether it's "just bridge" or "just barking mad"? (Unless, of course, the rules in New Zealand say "Don't alert calls that are 'just bridge'.")

 

Since you ask, though, I think it's normal that when you play negative doubles opener is expected to reopen with shortage in the suit overcalled, and when you have five cards in the suit it's "just arithmetic" to infer that opener will usually have such shortage. It's not normal, but also not unheard of, to play the pass as unconditionally forcing.

 

I would expect in most if not all jurisdictions if pass was forcing then it would require an alert.

[EricK]

Since you ask, though, I think it's normal that when you play negative doubles opener is expected to reopen with shortage in the suit overcalled, and when you have five cards in the suit it's "just arithmetic" to infer that opener will usually have such shortage. It's not normal, but also not unheard of, to play the pass as unconditionally forcing.

There's a difference between "opener must reopen with shortage" and "unconditionally forcing". It doesn't make much difference when 3rd hand does have a "trap pass" type of hand, but what about when he has a yarborough? Now, knowing that opener must re-open allows 4th hand to try various tactics with strong hands, whereas he can't afford to do that if opener doesn't have to re-open.

[gartinmale]

In North America there is a partner with whom I have this agreement at matchpoints only (if we open 1 of a suit and you overcall 1 of a suit, we must reopen). We were told we don't need to pre-alert it, nor alert the pass, but the agreement is clearly written in capital letters at the bottom of both of our convention cards. It wouldn't really surprise me if different directors said different things. We've found little consistency in the ACBL's local enforcement of what is alertable, what methods are permitted, etc.

 

Here's a related question. Suppose you have this agreement and open 1C. Suppose lefty overcalls 1S, partner passes, and righty fidgets for a long time and then asks "The pass is forcing, so you have to bid again, right?" If righty passes and you decide that based on the fidgeting and the question that maybe you would do best defending 1S, do you think you will get any redress when righty calls the director?

[pran]

In North America there is a partner with whom I have this agreement at matchpoints only (if we open 1 of a suit and you overcall 1 of a suit, we must reopen). We were told we don't need to pre-alert it, nor alert the pass, but the agreement is clearly written in capital letters at the bottom of both of our convention cards. It wouldn't really surprise me if different directors said different things. We've found little consistency in the ACBL's local enforcement of what is alertable, what methods are permitted, etc.

 

Here's a related question. Suppose you have this agreement and open 1C. Suppose lefty overcalls 1S, partner passes, and righty fidgets for a long time and then asks "The pass is forcing, so you have to bid again, right?" If righty passes and you decide that based on the fidgeting and the question that maybe you would do best defending 1S, do you think you will get any redress when righty calls the director?

Redress for what when your RHO calls the director? You are free to pass even after a forcing call by your partner so long as your pass is not based on any CPU.

 

However, if you suspect that your RHO has deliberately acted with his manners in order to mislead you away from a favourable contract then you are in a position to call the director and ask for redress.

 

The applicable law appears to be:

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

 

2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

[gartinmale]

The situation I had in mind was more along the lines of EricK's post, where partner has junk and righty is trying to decide how to bid a big hand based on our partnership agreements.

 

I understand the "at your own risk" part of the rule, but have had a result adjusted against me previously when I passed partner's forcing notrump after righty made it clear that she had a big hand. The director rolled the auction back because I had informed righty that the forcing notrump was forcing, and then passed it (at my own risk - but it would have been a good board had it stood). This seems like it could be an analogous situation.

[gartinmale]

Actually (sorry for the double post, maybe I should edit), where do you draw the line on these things?

 

Let's just look at the forcing notrump. Suppose you've agreed that it's always, 100% forcing, because it could include some very big hands (I don't have this agreement). You open 1H on a balanced 12 count, partner, an unpassed hand, bids 1NT, and before your next chance to call...

 

(a) righty shows you her hand, which has 25 points and seven spades, and then passes.

(b) righty tanks for 30 seconds, fingers the 4S card (yes, I know this is an irregularity), and then passes.

© righty asks "Is it 100% forcing? Am I guaranteed another chance to call?" and then passes.

(d) righty passes in tempo, and you look at your cards again and see that you actually have a 2 count, not a 12 count.

(e) righty passes in tempo.

 

It's a breach of partnership agreement to pass the forcing notrump. It also might be winning matchpoints, and as you've quoted, you're allowed to draw inferences at your own risk.

 

If you ever pass in case (e), it's sort of a baby psyche, right? I mean, if, in the perfect, undisturbed-by-tempo world of bridge, the bid is 100% forcing, then it's 100% forcing. You're passing a forcing bid without any reason to believe that it's the right action, and if you do it often enough you'll have to stop describing the bid as forcing, because you'll have an concealed understanding that sometimes you pass for no legitimate reason. I guess case (d) doesn't really matter, because you've already psyched and you and partner are not allowed to have agreements about what is and is not forcing after a psyche (this is not the original Roth-Stone).

 

But where's the line drawn in (a) through ©? At what point does it stop being "inferences...drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk" and start being a, well, baby psyche? And when are or are not (maybe the answer is never?) your opponents entitled to redress if you pass the bid?

[blackshoe]

You are required to explain your partnership agreements, and that's all you're required to explain. However, you have to be careful when your opponent asks a leading question. The inclination is to give the shortest possible answer, e.g., "yes", or "no", but that's not in accordance with the disclosure rules. If I were asked to explain my partner's forcing NT, by any question whatsoever, I would say "5-12 HCP, several hand types, fewer than 4 trumps, possibly 3 trumps with a limit raise, possibly a balanced hand, possible a long side suit, forcing one round". If a followup question on the lines of "is it absolutely forcing?" ensues, I'll answer "forcing one round". If he persists, I'll call the director. If I pass and a director is called, and that director rules against me, I will ask her to read it from the book. If she's unwilling or unable to do that, I will either appeal, or stop playing at this incompetent director's games.

 

I don't think there's any point in the first three cases where the question of a "baby psych" comes up. If it's RHO who's supposedly psyching, it's hard to see that in case (a), and in the other two cases, I'd say he's clearly not psyching, he's cheating. If you pass because of RHO's mannerisms, or his showing you his hand, I don't see how that can be called a psych.

 

If you open on a two count because you miscounted your points, you have not psyched, you have misbid.

 

You are allowed to deviate from your partnership agreements, for example by passing a forcing bid, provided that action could not demonstrably have been suggested by UI from partner. If a director "rolls the auction back" (whatever that means) because you did so, that director is wrong.

[gartinmale]

I meant your pass to be the so-called baby psyche. If the systemically correct call with your hand (due to the 1NT being forcing) is one of 2C, 2D, 2H, etc., and you pass, then you are misrepresenting your hand according to your system, albeit in a silly and possibly minor way, aren't you? [Edited: never mind, I think we're on the same page - when I call it a baby psych(e?), I'm talking about case (e)].

 

In the case I brought up, the director ruled that our opponents had been damaged by my misinformation "you said the bid was forcing, but then you didn't bid" and so reopened the auction prior to my pass and allowed righty to bid. [Edited: righty had some strongish two-suiter with spades and clubs and was hoping I would bid 2C so she could double it, and if I did not bid 2C intended to bid 2S.]

[pran]

I meant your pass to be the so-called baby psyche. If the systemically correct call with your hand (due to the 1NT being forcing) is one of 2C, 2D, 2H, etc., and you pass, then you are misrepresenting your hand according to your system, albeit in a silly and possibly minor way, aren't you? [Edited: never mind, I think we're on the same page - when I call it a baby psych(e?), I'm talking about case (e)].

 

In the case I brought up, the director ruled that our opponents had been damaged by my misinformation "you said the bid was forcing, but then you didn't bid" and so reopened the auction prior to my pass and allowed righty to bid. [Edited: righty had some strongish two-suiter with spades and clubs and was hoping I would bid 2C so she could double it, and if I did not bid 2C intended to bid 2S.]

I think Ed summed it up very well, and I shall be horrified if a director should rule that opponents have been misinformed in case you pass out an auction after explaining partner's call as (absolutely) forcing. You don't even need to bring in the question of psychic calls here.

 

If your explanation is correct according to your agreements then that should be end of story (unless the director finds reason to rule CPU which apparently was not the case here).

[blackshoe]

As I said, you are required to explain your agreement. Your agreement is that 1NT is forcing. You said so. There is no misinformation. RHO is not entitled to know what you intend to do, and you are not required to adhere to your agreements. I think it was Edgar Kaplan who said "a partnership agreement is an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to opponents", or something like that. The director was wrong.

[gartinmale]

Okay. Thanks for the replies. This sort of hijacked the thread, which was not my intention. I am interested in knowing whether this forcing pass treatment should be alertable (the way I see it, it's somewhat akin to the forcing 1NT, which is announceable in ACBL-land).

[blackshoe]

It depends on what the agreement is and what the jurisdiction is. In the ACBL, if your agreement is that opener, having had an overcall passed round to him, and being short in the overcaller's suit, should reopen with a double if at all possible, I would say that's neither unusual nor unexpected, and so requires no alert. If your agreement is that opener, having had an overcall passed round to him, must reopen with a double, and that responder might have, or is expected to have, a better hand for his pass than might normally be expected, then that is unusual, and does require an alert.

 

In the OP, it's not clear to me whether responder passed because they have an explicit agreement that in such a case opener must reopen with a double, or because he, holding 5 spades, expected his partner to be short in spades, and to reopen with a double if possible because of that. In the ACBL, in the former case I would rule the failure to alert is an infraction; in the latter case I would rule no infraction. I expect, as Wayne suggested, that the same rulings would be appropriate just about anywhere.

 

NB: the ruling in the "must double" case is predicated on the assumption that the agreement is "highly unusual and unexpected". If that turns out not to be the case, then there is no infraction, at least in the ACBL.

[EricK]

As I said, you are required to explain your agreement. Your agreement is that 1NT is forcing. You said so. There is no misinformation. RHO is not entitled to know what you intend to do, and you are not required to adhere to your agreements. I think it was Edgar Kaplan who said "a partnership agreement is an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to opponents", or something like that. The director was wrong.

But I think passing a forcing bid solely because RHO asks questions to try to ascertain your system is against the spirit of bridge. In an ideal world, RHO would have known without asking whether the 1NT is absolutely forcing and would have been able to pass in tempo, and there is almost zero chance that opener would then pass. I don't think it is fair to take advantage of your opponents' not knowing your conventional agreements. It is even worse because the laws do not look kindly on RHO asking questions for no apparent reason. If one of the possible hand types for responder is a very strong balanced hand, and 4th hand has nothing much but asks loads of questions about whether 1NT is absolutely forcing and as a result persuades opener to pass, then the director will probably not look kindly at 4th hand's actions. But if that's the case you shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on the nature of the questioning. In the case at hand, it seems pretty clear that RHO had some kind of hand he wanted to be able to bid later, and his questioning was intended to determine not what the agreement was, but whether you were certain not to pass, which might result in his not getting the chance he was looking for. However, he's not entitled to know, until you do it, what you are going to do. So IMO, your position, in this particular case, is untenable.

[EricK]

I suppose it depends on the nature of the questioning. In the case at hand, it seems pretty clear that RHO had some kind of hand he wanted to be able to bid later, and his questioning was intended to determine not what the agreement was, but whether you were certain not to pass, which might result in his not getting the chance he was looking for. However, he's not entitled to know, until you do it, what you are going to do. So IMO, your position, in this particular case, is untenable.

Some people play 1NT as forcing (which means absolutely forcing); some only play it as semi-forcing. Is there anybody who plays it as forcing who would pass if it weren't for the questions trying to determine which it was? I can't see how you can ethically justify passing a bid which would you otherwise wouldn't just because RHO asks questions. It's not like you would have taken that option if they knew your actual agreements (or if it were played behind screens, or online, so you didn't know that partner was answering these questions).

[aguahombre]

I can't see how you can ethically justify passing a bid which would you otherwise wouldn't just because RHO asks questions.

I think you are confusing "ethics", here. The Laws allow you to deviate from your agreements; there is no UI from partner, nor EI from an outside source. You are taking an action based on authorized information, and doing so at your own risk.

 

Are you saying it is also unethical to make a play as declarer which is against the odds, because you got a "read" on an opponent which you didn't intentionally do anything to cause, other than your normal playing of cards?

 

Are you saying it is unethical to infer that the opponent would seemed to have difficulty in a competitive auction is the one who had the extra strength?

[EricK]

I think you are confusing "ethics", here. The Laws allow you to deviate from your agreements; there is no UI from partner, nor EI from an outside source. You are taking an action based on authorized information, and doing so at your own risk.

 

Are you saying it is also unethical to make a play as declarer which is against the odds, because you got a "read" on an opponent which you didn't intentionally do anything to cause, other than your normal playing of cards?

 

Are you saying it is unethical to infer that the opponent would seemed to have difficulty in a competitive auction is the one who had the extra strength?

There is a difference, IMO, between these situations and the ones in this thread. You are not meant to get an advantage from having agreements which your opponents don't know. If, in order to find out your agreements, the opponents are forced to, or even just happen to, make a revealing tell, then it does not seem fair to take advantage of that.

 

If they are completely familiar with your agreements then you are, of course, at liberty to take advantage of any "reads" you get.

[aguahombre]

There is a difference, IMO, between these situations and the ones in this thread. You are not meant to get an advantage from having agreements which your opponents don't know. If, in order to find out your agreements, the opponents are forced to, or even just happen to, make a revealing tell, then it does not seem fair to take advantage of that.

 

If they are completely familiar with your agreements then you are, of course, at liberty to take advantage of any "reads" you get.

You might be right about that, in general, Erick. I was still thinking about when the opponent seems extra interested in the bid being forcing.

[blackshoe]

If your opponent is not fully disclosing his agreements, then you are entitled to require him to do so. However, IMO there comes a point when you have to recognize that badgering your opponent is not the right way to get full disclosure. At that point, the right way is to call the director. If you keep that in mind, the question of "unethical use of tells" will be moot.

 

I do wonder, Erick, if you are the director called to the table and told that such a situation has arisen, how will you rule, and under what Law(s)? That last part is important!

[EricK]

If your opponent is not fully disclosing his agreements, then you are entitled to require him to do so. However, IMO there comes a point when you have to recognize that badgering your opponent is not the right way to get full disclosure. At that point, the right way is to call the director. If you keep that in mind, the question of "unethical use of tells" will be moot.

 

I do wonder, Erick, if you are the director called to the table and told that such a situation has arisen, how will you rule, and under what Law(s)? That last part is important!

Before I go on I must make it clear that I am not a director, nor do I claim to know all the laws of the game. But I do think I understand the "spirit". And my posts are purely with regard to that.

 

I think we should separate 3 things:

1. Being entitled to know agreements

2. Making calls based on opponent's desire/need to know

3. Badgering opposition

 

1. We both agree, I think, that the opposition are entitled to know our agreements and it is our duty to not hide any details etc.

 

2. If the opponents don't know and have to ask, then what conclusions are we allowed to draw from their asking, and the manner of their asking? Here, I believe that it is wrong to make a call other than the one you would have made had they not asked. To do so is to take advantage, indirectly perhaps, of the opponent's ignorance of our agreements. Things get more complicated when it comes to the play of the hand. You will, almost certainly, have a better idea of what that player holds than if they hadn't needed to ask, and it is almost impossible to ignore that in the play (and almost impossible to rule against you if you don't). But very often that won't matter as the rest of the auction will often reveal that information anyway. But I think the sort of situation we have been discussing - passing a forcing bid because RHO checked it was forcing is awful behaviour (unless you would have passed anyway because eg you had completely psyched on an earlier round). And that is independent of how they checked.

 

3. Badgering the opposition is wrong.

 

I don't want to say how I would rule and under which laws because I don't know the laws. But I would like to give a warning (or penalty) to the badgerer, and I would ask opener if he really wanted to pass a forcing bid just because 4th hand didn't know his agreements and had to ask (however rudely).

[Cascade]

It depends on what the agreement is and what the jurisdiction is. In the ACBL, if your agreement is that opener, having had an overcall passed round to him, and being short in the overcaller's suit, should reopen with a double if at all possible, I would say that's neither unusual nor unexpected, and so requires no alert. If your agreement is that opener, having had an overcall passed round to him, must reopen with a double, and that responder might have, or is expected to have, a better hand for his pass than might normally be expected, then that is unusual, and does require an alert.

 

In the OP, it's not clear to me whether responder passed because they have an explicit agreement that in such a case opener must reopen with a double, or because he, holding 5 spades, expected his partner to be short in spades, and to reopen with a double if possible because of that. In the ACBL, in the former case I would rule the failure to alert is an infraction; in the latter case I would rule no infraction. I expect, as Wayne suggested, that the same rulings would be appropriate just about anywhere.

 

NB: the ruling in the "must double" case is predicated on the assumption that the agreement is "highly unusual and unexpected". If that turns out not to be the case, then there is no infraction, at least in the ACBL.

 

At the table there was some discussion of the risk of responder's pass. Responder opined that partner had to reopen. This seemed consistent with the fact that opener did reopen with a double with a minimum 11 hcp and some 2542 or 2524 (I don't have the hand record here). My impression was that responder believed the reopening was compulsory and therefore that the pass was forcing.

 

I suggested that you can't really play that way unless you disclose. And that the method wouldn't work so well when you disclose because when you pass with a weak hand overcaller's partner can trap your side into reentering the auction.

 

Responder countered with "its just bridge".

[gnasher]

At the table there was some discussion of the risk of responder's pass. Responder opined that partner had to reopen. This seemed consistent with the fact that opener did reopen with a double with a minimum 11 hcp and some 2542 or 2524 (I don't have the hand record here). My impression was that responder believed the reopening was compulsory and therefore that the pass was forcing.

 

I suggested that you can't really play that way unless you disclose. And that the method wouldn't work so well when you disclose because when you pass with a weak hand overcaller's partner can trap your side into reentering the auction.

 

Responder countered with "its just bridge".

You could have tried "So what? It's still alertable."

 

(Though I'm not sure why you were telling your opponents what the rules are. Isn't that what the director is paid for?)