Forcing Pass

[jmcw]

Partner said he wanted to discuss forcing pass. I replied that I would check my notes, well I have none.

So, it seems I've never really discussed the topic to any great length. Is there "clear" rules that can be applied throughout?.

I am somewhat familiar with the so called pass and pull strategy at higher levels, but I'm quite unprepared for DBL's and RDB's to show controls etc. At lower levels we bid to the promised level to show weakness.

 

FOR EXAMPLE:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sak432hk32d32cjt2&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sd2n3d3s]133|200[/hv]

 

2NT shows Limit or better. Here a Pass by South would be Forcing and show better values, the immediate 3♠ is weaker!

 

Anyway, I'm not sure where to begin writing an agreement, some advice would be appreciated.

[CSGibson]

Here are the forcing pass agreements I have in context of a big club system, copied directly from my system notes:

 

Forcing pass is on when we are in a game forcing auction, or...(whatever else). It is not enough that we have bid game, it also has to be clear that it is not preemptive action - ie, the auction 1H-4H, if they bid 4S, forcing pass is not on. Similarly, if we open 5D, and they bid 5H, then forcing pass is not on. If we have bid game in a competitive auction where it is not clear who's hand it is, then for forcing pass to be on we have to have made a slam try at some point, since our game bid may be a bit of a 2-way shot already.
 


 

For this discussion, "the hot seat" is defined as the position immediately after the most recent bidder.
 
In our version of forcing pass, pass suggests defending...requesting double unless partner has a hand which would have pulled a penalty double. Double in the hot seat is the ambiguous hand with no clear direction - it may be a balanced hand, or a take-out double type of hand in general, but it is NOT penalty oriented. Bidding on, obviously, is a hand with a clear decision/action. This is an inversion of the normal forcing pass agreements, done for the purpose of making partner's pull of a pass to be more definitive in nature.
 


 

The most common situation where we will have forcing pass auctions is where we have opened a strong club, and had a positive & game forcing response, since those are the times that people have easiest entry into the auction. When the hot seat has NOT had a chance to name a suit, and we are in a forcing pass situation, then passing and pulling the double suggests a flexible hand with more than one place to play. On the other hand, if the hot seat has a known suit, or supports responder's known suit after initially passing, then passing and pulling becomes a slam try/extra value showing in that suit. This is especially prevalent in high level auctions.

 

After we open 1C, if there is direct 4+ level preemption, then responder and opener are automatically in a forcing pass situation. This applies anytime they have preempted to the 4 level in our big club auctions and responder has not specifically denied a game forcing hand. That would mean that 1C - (4C) or 1C - (1S) - X - (4S) sets up a forcing pass, and that 1C - (1H) - P - (4H), or 1C - (P) - 1D - (4H) would not.

 

Edit: As an aside, our own forcing pass agreements have been developed in the past 3 weeks, are not comprehensive, and are designed to meet the needs of a big club system, so I am not recommending adopting our agreements, so much as giving them as an example of how system notes around forcing pass might be formatted.

[fromageGB]

My agreement (but unwritten) is that a pass is forcing if

1) we are in a game forcing situation but below game - your GF bids need to be defined eg 2/1, responder jump shifts, 4sf

2) where we have made a bid that commits to particular level - eg 1♥ 3♣ Bergenesque

3) where we have made an asking bid and we are beneath the level of trumps.

 

In a non-asking situation, (a) pass is ambivalent or with nothing specific to say, (b) double suggest penalty is better, and has length/values in that suit, (c ) a bid is a positive preference for this action.

In an asking situation, (a) pass means "I would have made a bid lower than the interference", (b) X means "I would have bid that", (c ) a bid is the same bid that would have been made without the interference.

 

An example in an asking situation : 1♠ (p) 2NT(J2N)"have you a shortage?" (3♦)

pass = would have bid clubs = no shortage

X = single or void ♦

3♥/♠ = uninterrupted shortage in hearts/clubs.

 

I am not in favour of the OP "bid shows weakness in non-asking situations" because it is those hands where a penalty may be more beneficial.

[fromageGB]

Also

4) a pass is forcing if we have bid game on hcp strength rather than distribution, and they bid above game.

 

Example 1♠ (p) 3♥Bergenesque 11/12 4 card support (4♦) 4♠ (5♦) pass!

Pass is forcing, saying "I am happy if you double, and I am happy if you bid on".

[dwar0123]

Just had a forcing pass misunderstanding with this auction.

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=5&a=1sp2sdp3hp4hpp4spp]133|100[/hv]

 

Was west pass forcing?

[Codo]

I do not know your rules, but if someone in my partnership freely bids game, pass is forcing. The vul. makes it even clearer.

[JLOGIC]

Just had a forcing pass misunderstanding with this auction.

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=5&a=1sp2sdp3hp4hpp4spp]133|100[/hv]

 

Was west pass forcing?

 

Yes, basically because they are clearly saving. You have to be careful of walking the dog type auctions, but here the guy passed 3H so he is just being dumb. Be careful with an auction like 3S X p 4H p p 4S, this is not clearly saving since he passed a double of 3S and might have been being deceptive or simply waiting to see what suit you had before deciding whether to double or bid game.

[fromageGB]

Yes, forcing. You have not clearly bid game on strength (rule 4) as the 3♥ could be a Yarborough. However, opponents have clearly denied strength. 2♠ must be limited, and opener has made no move, which he would with a stronger hand. This looks like one of those hands where both games may/are likely to go off, so happy to double unless I have 6 hearts.

[SteveMoe]

Agree with many posts above.

 

Simply, we have a known fit and are in an Invitational auction or better, Forcing Pass is on. FP shows extras or no wastage in their trump suit.

Double shows bare minimum values or wasted strength in their trump suit.

 

Holding ♠AKxxx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣Kx you open 1♠ - P - 4♦(splinter)-5♦-P* = forcing, showing no wasted values opposite partner's known singleton. Switch the minors and Double would be appropriate.

For 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠* - 4♠ (*Limit Raise +) a pass would look like: ♠x ♥AKQxx ♦KJx ♣Qx. Double could be either: ♠xx ♥AKxxx ♦QJx ♣Qx or ♠QJx ♥AKxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx.

[jmcw]

Agree with many posts above.

 

Simply, we have a known fit and are in an Invitational auction or better, Forcing Pass is on. FP shows extras or no wastage in their trump suit.

Double shows bare minimum values or wasted strength in their trump suit.

 

Holding ♠AKxxx ♥KQxx ♦xx ♣Kx you open 1♠ - P - 4♦(splinter)-5♦-P* = forcing, showing no wasted values opposite partner's known singleton. Switch the minors and Double would be appropriate.

For 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠* - 4♠ (*Limit Raise +) a pass would look like: ♠x ♥AKQxx ♦KJx ♣Qx. Double could be either: ♠xx ♥AKxxx ♦QJx ♣Qx or ♠QJx ♥AKxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx.

 

I've been reading up on the subject, and yes the previous posts and yours are quite helpful, thanks. But, this example...For 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠* - 4♠ (*Limit Raise +) would be quite contraversial I think. Since game values are NOT promised, then why would FP apply, further, what if the last bid was just 3♠ now what?

[JLOGIC]

Indeed, that specific auction is probably the most controversial/discussed of all FP auctions. I prefer to play it as non forcing myself.

 

It is certainly reasonable to think "2S did not even force us to 4H, so why must we be in a force over 4S." The other side will argue that it is one of the most important times that you need a forcing pass, to decide whether to bid 5H over 4S, and in this situation both hands have super wide ranges so it is practical to put yourself in a force to aid your decision.

[twoshy]

Indeed, that specific auction is probably the most controversial/discussed of all FP auctions. I prefer to play it as non forcing myself.

 

It is certainly reasonable to think "2S did not even force us to 4H, so why must we be in a force over 4S." The other side will argue that it is one of the most important times that you need a forcing pass, to decide whether to bid 5H over 4S, and in this situation both hands have super wide ranges so it is practical to put yourself in a force to aid your decision.

 

Bit of a tangent, but do you prefer to use 2S and 2NT for limit and GF raises, respectively, or to use them to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support? Do you think splitting the raises by strength would resolve the forcing pass issue? It seems to me that it would make it simpler, but that a forcing pass might still be wanted opposite the limit raise (big difference between 4 card support in an offensive hand compared to 3 card support in a defensive hand).

[JLOGIC]

Bit of a tangent, but do you prefer to use 2S and 2NT for limit and GF raises, respectively, or to use them to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support?

 

This is also a very good question, and hotly debated. I prefer to distinguish between 3 and 4 trumps.

 

You might read between the lines of this thread and realize that I do not think forcing passes are important, and I think they're really overrated. To me, showing my degree of fit is much more valuable than playing one as GF in case they bid 4S so I can play forcing passes. I probably player fewer auctions than almost anyone as a forcing pass. My style in forcing pass auctions was very much molded by Hamman who is even more extreme than I am. At the end of the day, competitive bridge auctions to me are more about locating fits early, and establishing your degree of fit. Strength is largely a secondary concern.

 

But, I am not mainstream in this regard, so take what I say for what its worth, just one guys opinion.

 

I do feel very strongly that if you split them between LR and GF, the primary reason is so that you don't have to be in a FP opposite a LR. I think being in a force in that case would largely defeat the purpose.

[twoshy]

Thanks, I'll have to give you a pretend +1. What is mainstream doesn't really matter much to me, I'm just happy to hear the rationale behind a style.

[Zelandakh]

At the end of the day, competitive bridge auctions to me are more about locating fits early, and establishing your degree of fit. Strength is largely a secondary concern.

 

But, I am not mainstream in this regard, so take what I say for what its worth, just one guys opinion.

I am absolutely with you on this; but I am very surprised to hear that is not a mainstream view. I thought the idea that fits are more important than strength in competitive auctions is one that reached the mainstream at least 20 years ago!

[fromageGB]

I am absolutely with you on this; but I am very surprised to hear that is not a mainstream view. I thought the idea that fits are more important than strength in competitive auctions is one that reached the mainstream at least 20 years ago!

Me too, but it depends on your definition of mainstream. Certainly the better players I know distinguish length, so perhaps mainstream amongst them, but the general players at the clubs just go on strength, I believe. Whether it is 4 or 3 - or even 2 - card support does not become known until dummy goes down.

 

I like to distinguish length AND strength when partner opens a major, so with no immediate competition use a Bergen-like method with 4 card support, and direct and indirect raises (with a forcing NT) with 3 card support. In competition, because showing the fit immediately is more important, I forgo the possibility of a 4-4 fit in the other major, and play double as non-takeout. This gives after say 1♠ (2♦) and using transfer responses

2♥ = a normal 2♠ raise, 3 card support

2♠ = weaker preemptive 3 card raise

2NT = game invitational or stronger 3 card raise

3♥ = game invitational or stronger 4 card support

3♠ = weaker preemptive 4 card raise

Fit jumps with new suits and cue = splinter.

 

Adapting the idea for a partner who does not like transfers it becomes

X = equivalent to s 2♠ raise with 3 card support

2♠ = weaker preemptive 3 card raise

2NT = game invitational or stronger 3 card raise

cue 3♦ = game invitational or stronger 4 card support

3♠ = weaker preemptive 4 card raise

 

Some invert the 3♦ and 2NT bids, but the idea is to show degree of fit primarily, and strength up to a point, but we do not distinguish between a GF raise and an invitational raise. So for us while a GF 4 card support woukd bid 1♠ (2♦) 3♥, if 4th seat bids 4♦ opener's pass is not forcing, as we have not shown game values. However 1♠ (2♦) 2NT (3♦) pass IS forcing, because responder has committed to 3♠ or X, and if 4th seat bid 4♦ a double is usually automatic, as responder has only 3 cards in support and has more hcp strength.

[JLOGIC]

I am absolutely with you on this; but I am very surprised to hear that is not a mainstream view. I thought the idea that fits are more important than strength in competitive auctions is one that reached the mainstream at least 20 years ago!

 

I meant about the forcing pass thing. In USA it is still not that common to use 2N as a raise yet, though its creeping in, so I have no idea what most people do about that.

 

FWIW I am not completely sold on it. In some auctions where you wouldnt have a natural 2N bid it's obvious, but an auction like 1S-(2C), I dunno i feel like natural 2N is pretty useful there and not uncommon. I pretty much just do whatever my partner wants.

[SteveMoe]

I've been reading up on the subject, and yes the previous posts and yours are quite helpful, thanks. But, this example...For 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠* - 4♠ (*Limit Raise +) would be quite contraversial I think. Since game values are NOT promised, then why would FP apply, further, what if the last bid was just 3♠ now what?

Indeed, that specific auction is probably the most controversial/discussed of all FP auctions. I prefer to play it as non forcing myself.

 

It is certainly reasonable to think "2S did not even force us to 4H, so why must we be in a force over 4S." The other side will argue that it is one of the most important times that you need a forcing pass, to decide whether to bid 5H over 4S, and in this situation both hands have super wide ranges so it is practical to put yourself in a force to aid your decision.

JMCW - For an auction like 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠* - 3♠ double is Penalty (or Balance of Power Penalty). 4♥ is still available to accept the game invitation, while pass would simply show a minimum hand not worthy of the other 2 bids. Partner is well placed to decide - so there is no issue and no need to trigger the FP. .

 

Justin's perspective is well taken.

 

One viewpoint around LR or better is:

1) Opponents are more likely to sacrifice especially when Vul is favorable.

2) When we hold 23 or more HCP we need to either double or bid one more. We cannot let them play unmolested. Yes, they might have severe distribution on their side, but then we should too!

3) Clarifying the possible hands for pass and double as above makes this decision a collaborative one with partner.

 

The tendency to open light also influences the decision whether a pass by opener at their second turn is forcing. Frequent light openings (10-11 HCP, 1-1.5 QTs) and Limit Raises would induce me to adopt the second approach (need to be in a GF auction) too. An 11 HCP limit raise opposite might mean we barely have half the deck's HCP.

[CSGibson]

As I mentioned above, my own requirements for a forcing pass are that we are in a game force, and/or that we have shown slam interest in a competitive auction (besides a small set of specifically defined auctions where we have made exceptions). I feel like this is better than forcing a forcing pass in a limit raise auction because it allows for more shapely limit raises, and because it eliminates one of the large downsides of forcing pass - sometimes the highest Expected Value comes from passing. This is intuitively obvious, otherwise every contract would end in them doubled or us declaring.

 

The fewer combined values we have, the more likely that our highest EV will come from passing. Its not unreasonable to draw the line at limit raise or better, I just personally don't believe its best - after all, just because we aren't playing forcing pass in a situation doesn't mean that we cannot double them effectively when they've stepped out, or compete correctly when its our deal.

 

Another situation where a pass is forcing for us, which is not outlined in our deal, is where we have made an artificial raise of a suit (cue-bid or otherwise); there, we are automatically forced to the cheapest return to our suit. In those situations, we have a different set of rules for forcing pass - bidding on shows the weakest possible hand in context of the auction, pass suggests extra values but could stand defending, and X/XX indicates a desire to play in the current contract.

 

We also play forcing pass in cue-bidding or keycard context with different rules.

 

The important thing if playing forcing pass methods is to be in 100% agreement with partner about when pass is forcing, and what it shows. Forcing pass disasters usually are major screw-ups, since they involve high level decisions which typically are worth several imps to get right. One forcing pass disaster may be enough to wipe out any theoretical gains you get from the convention in a year if you don't know what you are doing.

[bluecalm]

2) When we hold 23 or more HCP we need to either double or bid one more. We cannot let them play unmolested. Yes, they might have severe distribution on their side, but then we should too!

 

I think this is very bad in cases where our suit is hearts snd their is spades. Points doesn't mean much in those situations especially when unsuccessful double cost way more than successful one gains.

[JLOGIC]

The biggest problem forcing pass people have imo is the argument

 

"well, it must be right to double them or save, ergo we should be in a forcing pass"

 

This is a tempting argument, but even on hands where we are not going for 800 and they might not make, it's not true. The problem with this argument is bridge is not a perfect information game, and it's not like we know that they are 100 % to go down or 100 % to make when we're bidding. A simple counterargument is a situation where they are 50 % to make, 50 % to go down, and we go down 500 when they make and 300 when they don't. In this case 50 % of the time we win 8, and 50 % of the time we lose 12 when we save. Conversely if we double we lose 5 half the time and gain 3 half the time. So we lose 2 imps by saving, 1 imp by doubling, ergo our best decision would be to pass. This, despite the fact that our save is always good if they're making, and doubling is always good if theyre down.

 

In real life this is a common scenario imo, we know our save would be good but we think we have a reasonable shot of beating them, however we are not confident enough in that to be doubling. In this case, we just pass it out and try and beat the contract. Forcing pass on these kind of hands costs significant imps. IRL bridge is a probabilistic game, and is not as black and white as the forcing pass advocates would have you believe.

[Zelandakh]

I think FP was seen as a panacea for a large portion of difficult high level decisions and therefore included as often as possible by many. I suspect that Justin's generation will correct this back to a point where FP is a useful tool but not for every situation. I would also guess that at intermediate level, forcing passes generally cost more IMPs/MPs than they gain. Even when you are on the same page it is not that unusual that you are in practise making a decsion between, say, -590 and -500. It is not that I dislike FPs; it is only that you need to be careful about situations where they apply. I am hopeful that the new generation will provide updated FP rules that are simple enough for the masses but nonetheless more effective than the ones usually used now. Justin, do you have your favourite FP rules in some simplified form that could be posted on BBF and perhaps usable by I/A players?

[kreivi68]

I think FP was seen as a panacea for a large portion of difficult high level decisions and therefore included as often as possible by many. I suspect that Justin's generation will correct this back to a point where FP is a useful tool but not for every situation. I would also guess that at intermediate level, forcing passes generally cost more IMPs/MPs than they gain. Even when you are on the same page it is not that unusual that you are in practise making a decsion between, say, -590 and -500. It is not that I dislike FPs; it is only that you need to be careful about situations where they apply. I am hopeful that the new generation will provide updated FP rules that are simple enough for the masses but nonetheless more effective than the ones usually used now. Justin, do you have your favourite FP rules in some simplified form that could be posted on BBF and perhaps usable by I/A players?

 

Hi Zel & rest. For your knowledge: Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal had something to say about FP

in their book Partnership Bidding at Bridge (1993). They also set clear rules. See pages 45-49:

 

http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/PartnershipBiddingAtBridge.ZIP

 

Yours, T.

[Zelandakh]

Hi kreivi and welcome to BBF. Robson and Segal is one of the most quoted references on these forums. I think you will find that anyone who has been around here for more than a few months (and is interested) will be familiar with the methods proposed.

[MrAce]

Hi kreivi and welcome to BBF. Robson and Segal is one of the most quoted references on these forums. I think you will find that anyone who has been around here for more than a few months (and is interested) will be familiar with the methods proposed.

 

I promise to read it if you send me the book Zel :P