Forcing Pass

[Cascade]

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?)

 

It was a friendly discussion on a point of interest. It wasn't an attempt to get a ruling. I was curious about the situation so expressed an opinion there and now here for further discussion.

[barmar]

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 wonder if opener would have reopened with 3532 shape and a minimum. And while it couldn't have happened on this hand, is opener really expected to reopen holding 4 cards in the opponent's suit?

 

The answers to these cases would reveal whether the pass is REALLY forcing.

[Cascade]

I wonder if opener would have reopened with 3532 shape and a minimum. And while it couldn't have happened on this hand, is opener really expected to reopen holding 4 cards in the opponent's suit?

 

The answers to these cases would reveal whether the pass is REALLY forcing.

 

The case with three spades is more interesting because the spades can be 5530 around the table.

[gartinmale]

For what it's worth, in the partnership where I have this agreement we have agreed to reopen regardless of shape or strength at matchpoints, but have not agreed to always reopen with a double.

 

I actually think this is a bad agreement, because we penalty-pass trap our opponents less often than we ourselves get into trouble, but nevertheless we play it, and we would reopen with 3532 shape and a minimum.

[blackshoe]

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).

 

1 and 3: yes, we agree.

 

2: You are permitted to take inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk (Law 73D1). You are not permitted to conceal information about your agreements (Law 20F, Law 40). If a problem arises because one contestant feels the other is not providing full disclosure or because the other contestant feels his opponent is "badgering", or both, the director should be called to handle it. The director will investigate, and will often be able to tell right away which side, if any, is right and which side, if any, is wrong. IAC, after investigation (and possibly consultation with other directors) he will make a ruling. If he's going to consult, he'll make an interim ruling that will allow play to continue. In the normal course of events, though, when your right hand opponent asks a question, you answer, and there is perhaps one follow up question, answered, it is not at all unethical to decide from your opponents mannerisms, to deviate from your partnership agreements. If you have induced more questioning by being sparse with your answers, you have committed an infraction (see Law 40B6). If, having received full disclosure, you continue to ask the same questions, you are committing an infraction (see Law 74A2). In either case, the director should deal with it, but somebody has to call him at some point. I agree that it would be distasteful to take advantage of opponents' mannerisms when you have created the problem (by failing to fully disclose your methods). I'm not at all sure that it's unethical or illegal, though. (The ethics of the game are defined by its rules, so it is only unethical if it's illegal and done knowingly).

 

In the case in the OP, the discussion took place after the hand, and was apparently friendly — neither side saw fit to call the TD. There was no alert during the auction, responder made a comment during the post hand discussion that "opener had to reopen". The OP then raised the question whether responder's pass should have been alerted. That is a matter for regulation — it is not addressed in the laws, except that Regulating Authorities are authorized to make such regulations. Matchpoint theory does suggest that when your side opens the bidding and your opponents compete, it is losing bridge to allow them to declare a contract at the one level. In that sense, it is "just bridge" that opener should reopen rather than make the final pass. I think though that if the partnership has an explicit agreement that pass here is forcing, it should be alerted.

 

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".

 

Responder may be mistaken, see my reply to EricK in this post. What did opener have to say in all this discussion?

[EricK]

I agree that it would be distasteful to take advantage of opponents' mannerisms when you have created the problem (by failing to fully disclose your methods). I'm not at all sure that it's unethical or illegal' date=' though. (The ethics of the game are defined by its rules, so it is only unethical if it's illegal and done knowingly).[/quote']

Consider the simplest scenario:

You open 1♠, partner responds 1NT which you alert, and RHO simply asks what that is, and you reply "forcing 1NT". RHO now passes. Is it really legal for you to pass (assuming you genuinely play the 1NT as forcing rather than semi-forcing, and you haven't psyched)? Suppose you do pass and it turns out that RHO has nothing much - i.e. no particular reason to ask the question (other than idle curiosity) - and 1NT is a worse contract than you would have reached had you made your systemic bid, would you feel RHO had damaged you by the question, or would you feel that you had "taken an inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk" and let it go?

 

If you would just let it go, then at least that is a consistent position. But it does mean that opps must continually ask the meaning of your bids whether or not it affects them this round, or be at a constant disadvantage. And as far as I am aware, many regulating authorities act as if asking when you having nothing to think about is equivalent to hesitating with a singleton, or other sharp practices.

[aguahombre]

At least (or should I say, at last?) one good thing in the ACBL; forcing/semi-forcing 1NT is simply announced.

[blackshoe]

Consider the simplest scenario:

You open 1♠, partner responds 1NT which you alert…

Not going to happen since, like Aguahombre, I'm in the ACBL, and we announce "forcing" or "semi-forcing" as appropriate. However, in the unlikely event I'm back in England for this session, yes, I'd alert.

 

…and RHO simply asks what that is, and you reply "forcing 1NT". RHO now passes. Is it really legal for you to pass (assuming you genuinely play the 1NT as forcing rather than semi-forcing, and you haven't psyched)?

Yes, it is. However, in England, where the forcing NT was certainly rare when I was there 20 years ago, and probably still is, I wouldn't answer "forcing 1NT," I would give a full description of our agreement: "5 to a bad 12 HCP, balanced, unbalanced with a 5 card or longer suit, or possibly a 3 card limit raise, forcing". If partner is a passed hand, I might announce "semi-forcing" when I have that agreement, leave out the reference to a limit raise (with that hand, partner would make a different bid) and change "forcing" to "nominally forcing, but I might pass with a minimum opener". (NB: some pairs play 1NT as always "semi-forcing"). ACBL regulations, in another rare instance where they are IMO better than EBU regs, explicitly state that explaining a convention by naming it is insufficient disclosure; you must describe the agreed meaning. I don't see that in the Orange Book, but I believe the principle is followed by English directors. Others here may be able to confirm that (or not).

 

Suppose you do pass and it turns out that RHO has nothing much - i.e. no particular reason to ask the question (other than idle curiosity) - and 1NT is a worse contract than you would have reached had you made your systemic bid, would you feel RHO had damaged you by the question, or would you feel that you had "taken an inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk" and let it go?

 

If you would just let it go, then at least that is a consistent position. But it does mean that opps must continually ask the meaning of your bids whether or not it affects them this round, or be at a constant disadvantage. And as far as I am aware, many regulating authorities act as if asking when you having nothing to think about is equivalent to hesitating with a singleton, or other sharp practices.

Most likely I would let it go — as you say, I passed "at my own risk". However, if RHO generated a lot of histrionics along with his question, I would probably ask for a ruling. After all, if he's just curious, what were all the histrionics about?

 

The EBU Orange Book is well worth reading on these matters. Chapter 3 covers disclosure, and chapter 5 covers alerting and announcing. Some of what's in there may surprise you. B-) The Tangerine Book is a good summary of the Orange Book specifically for players, but its coverage of these matters is much less thorough.

[mjj29]

Yes, it is. However, in England, where the forcing NT was certainly rare when I was there 20 years ago, and probably still is, I wouldn't answer "forcing 1NT," I would give a full description of our agreement: "5 to a bad 12 HCP, balanced, unbalanced with a 5 card or longer suit, or possibly a 3 card limit raise, forcing".

Really? Everyone I've seen play that in England (including myself) would just alert it and say 'forcing' unless questioned further.

 

Matt

[Cascade]

Responder may be mistaken, see my reply to EricK in this post. What did opener have to say in all this discussion?

 

Opener was less sure but sort of agreed that he had to reopen. At the table opener did reopen with a minimum nearly balanced hand and felt that he was under some pressure to reopen.

[blackshoe]

Really? Everyone I've seen play that in England (including myself) would just alert it and say 'forcing' unless questioned further.

 

Really. Part of it is probably that having learned the "ACBL way", where naming a convention is explicitly inadequate disclosure, and anything that even looks like a question is supposed to prompt full disclosure, I have learned to fully explain at the hint of a question. It does seem to me, from what you say here, that what you're effectively doing is "announcing" that 1NT is forcing. Perhaps some future revision of the OB will make that the rule, but it seems to me in the meantime that "forcing" isn't enough, since you give no information about what hand types would make the bid. On the gripping hand, If "everybody" is doing it that way, and no one is complaining or is damaged, what the heck, go for it.

[EricK]

The EBU Orange Book is well worth reading on these matters. Chapter 3 covers disclosure, and chapter 5 covers alerting and announcing. Some of what's in there may surprise you. B-) The Tangerine Book is a good summary of the Orange Book specifically for players, but its coverage of these matters is much less thorough.

Unless I misunderstand something this all seems heavily weighted in favour of the pairs who use alertable conventions: If a player doesn't ask the meaning it is his own fault if he gets it wrong; if he asks the meaning when he has a genuine bridge reason, the opps are allowed to use that fact to their advantage; if he asks without a genuine bridge reason then he might be ruled against if the opps guess wrong.

 

Surely the spirit of the game is that one shouldn't be able to get an advantage by using methods the opponents don't understand?

[c_corgi]

EricK's arguments appear self-evidently correct. If, as it seems, the laws/regulations do not support them, then IMO the laws/regulations need to be changed accordingly.

[blackshoe]

You'll have to take that up with your NBO (for regulations) and the WBFLC (for laws).

 

I searched my law book for "spirit". The word is not in it. I suppose the closest is Law 72A: Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these Laws. Also perhaps Law 72B1: A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

 

There is, in the ACBL, a Code of Active Ethics, which may be what you're looking for, but it is not an ACBL regulation, and does not in itself have the force of law (and wouldn't apply in England anyway). Not sure if there's a similar thing in the EBU, and right now I'm too tired to go looking, so you're on your own. :)

 

BTW, the appearance of the word "ethical" in Law 72A is the only place in the laws where that word appears; "ethics" does not appear.

[campboy]

The regulations in question (Orange Book 3E) do make it clear that questions asked in a neutral manner about doubles or alerted calls are not likely to be judged illegally misleading. Given that, I think they get the emphasis about right.

[campboy]

Appeal #2 in this write-up may be of interest. A ruling was sought because a player who was told that a 5♥ response to RCKB showed 2 of 5 key cards then said "without the queen?" and declarer played on the assumption that that player didn't have it. There was no adjustment on the grounds that declarer was not "an innocent player" because the original explanation was incomplete.

[WellSpyder]

Appeal #2 in this write-up may be of interest. A ruling was sought because a player who was told that a 5♥ response to RCKB showed 2 of 5 key cards then said "without the queen?" and declarer played on the assumption that that player didn't have it. There was no adjustment on the grounds that declarer was not "an innocent player" because the original explanation was incomplete.

Certainly looks like the right ruling - declarer was clearly at fault for an inadequate explanation. But it seems to me that he drew the wrong inference, anyway. Obviously a player holding the trump Q knows dummy will not have this card, but why shouldn't they still feel they need to know whether declarer knew dummy would not have this card? Surely that can affect what inferences the defender thinks they can draw about the declarer's hand....

[aguahombre]

Wellspyder is correct, IMO.

 

Also, the defender in Appeal #2 claimed he was correcting the incomplete explanation, not asking a question (Declarer claims he thought it was a question.)

 

Just maybe two without is not their agreement, Defenders might want to know that, as well...in addition to whether dummy might have an extra trump and would have "shown" the queen. I might want the answer to know how dangerous a trump lead would be.

 

One of the commentators on the appeal addressed the remote possibility Declarer might deliberately leave out information about the trump queen to gain a reaction.

[bluejak]

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"?

A forcing pass is alertable in England/Wales.

 

My understanding is that a lot of players consider re-opening with a shortage automatic even with a minimum. These days that might be considered "general bridge knowledge". But that does not make the pass forcing: they will pass with length in the opponent’s suit.

 

On RGB the best player who used to post - sadly I have not seen him there recently - Kieran Dyke once explained that with a singleton or void in their suit you always re-open, with a doubleton you often re-open and with three or more you usually pass. I think that is normal.

 

Of course if playing that way you can pass a sixteen count with long spades because the odds favour you: partner is very likely to be short.

 

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?

None whatever. Opponents' mannerisms are AI, and agreements are not binding.

 

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.

If there was nothing more to it than that I think you were very unlucky in your ruling.

 

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?

Never. Psyches are legal.

 

Ok, never subject to UI considerations, ie so long as you have no UI from partner suggesting passing, and also if you have passed enough times in similar positions for it to become an agreement then it is time you told the opponents "nearly never".

 

But if there is no UI and this is the first time then you may pass freely.

 

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.

Taking advantage of AI is in the correct spirit of the game. The fact that things might be different in different circumstances is not relevant. If you wish to take advantage of your opponents' mannerisms that is legal, and you are doing your best to win fairly.

 

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).

The Laws & Ethics of the game say you can, so your view that you should not is not binding on other people.

 

Consider the simplest scenario:

You open 1♠, partner responds 1NT which you alert, and RHO simply asks what that is, and you reply "forcing 1NT". RHO now passes. Is it really legal for you to pass (assuming you genuinely play the 1NT as forcing rather than semi-forcing, and you haven't psyched)? Suppose you do pass and it turns out that RHO has nothing much - i.e. no particular reason to ask the question (other than idle curiosity) - and 1NT is a worse contract than you would have reached had you made your systemic bid, would you feel RHO had damaged you by the question, or would you feel that you had "taken an inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk" and let it go?

You are allowed by the Laws & Ethics of the game to pass. It is at your own risk, and if you misjudged why he asked, that is tough luck.

 

If you would just let it go, then at least that is a consistent position. But it does mean that opps must continually ask the meaning of your bids whether or not it affects them this round, or be at a constant disadvantage. And as far as I am aware, many regulating authorities act as if asking when you having nothing to think about is equivalent to hesitating with a singleton, or other sharp practices.

No, of course they do not have to, because this does not happen.

[barmar]

The definition of this sense of "spirit" is: the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.

 

So by definition, you can't expect to find the spirit explicitly in the law book. It's inferred from intrepretation and experience.

[EricK]

No, of course they do not have to, because this does not happen.

What does this extract from the Tangerine Book mean then?

It is also improper to ask questions which may mislead your

opponents. The TD might adjust the result in either case.

If people are allowed to draw conclusions "at their own risk" this implies that sometimes they will have been misled. So sometimes it is OK to ask questions which may mislead your opponents.

 

When is it OK and when isn't it?

[barmar]

I believe the Laws say that you may not intentionally try to mislead the opponent. But if you do something innocently with no such intent, they take inference at their own risk.

 

But there's also a law that says you must be extra careful in sensitive situations. Since there's a fine line you have to walk.

[campboy]

When is it OK and when isn't it?

It becomes a problem if the question is phrased in such a way as to suggest something specific about your reason for asking, or if the auction is such that it would be unusual to ask at all (or, as barmar says, if you were trying to mislead!).

 

I don't know how much is in the Tangerine Book, but you would probably be better off looking in the Orange Book, of which the Tangerine is a summary, for a fuller picture.

[bluejak]

What does this extract from the Tangerine Book mean then?

 

If people are allowed to draw conclusions "at their own risk" this implies that sometimes they will have been misled. So sometimes it is OK to ask questions which may mislead your opponents.

 

When is it OK and when isn't it?

It is ok to ask reasonable questions because you need to know the answers, whether an opponent is misled or not.

 

It is not ok to ask questions when you do not need to know the answers and the questions might mislead.

 

It is not ok to ask a question in a way that might mislead the opponent when the obvious way of asking will not.

 

An example of the last one: suppose you hold the ♥Q and the ♥K is led:

 

An ‘OK’ question: “What are your leads?”

A not ‘OK’ question: “Does the king promise the queen?”

[phil_20686]

I'm not at all sure that it's unethical or illegal, though. (The ethics of the game are defined by its rules, so it is only unethical if it's illegal and done knowingly).

 

This should not pass unchallenged. There are plenty of legal situations which are unethical, not unlike real life. My go to example is the use of the Colour Coup against the partially sighted, but there are others.