Handling forcing passes at a high level.

[the hog]

I won't pretend that this thread was not prompted by a thread last week. I know how I handle the following situations, (perhaps not optimall), but I am curious as to what others play and whether their treatments are affected by such things as bidding in a fit situation and by vulnerability. I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that even some good players on these fora have no real agreements and fly by the seat of their pants.

 

Lets assume this is the bidding with 2♦ being a gf.

 

1♥ (P) 2♦ (5♣)

 

Now:

P = ? Yes, we are in a fp situation, but what do you have the pass show or ask?

X = ?

 

1♥ (P) 2♦ (5♣)

Pass (P) Now?

 

5H = ?

x = ?

 

What about a 5-4 fit situation:

 

1♥ (P) 2NT (5♣)

5♥ = ?

Pass = ?

X = ?

You can comment on the meaning of a 5♦ bid here as well, if you like.

 

If you decide to pass, what do pd's 5♥ or X mean.

[bluecalm]

My preference is to play dbl as penalty if we already have trumps set (as in 1H - p - 2N - 5C) example and play double as takeout/encouraging if we don't.

This is according to general principle: we didn't establish a trump suit then double is for take out. It has slight theoretical advantage over penalty double as well although that point is minor and probably not worth worrying about in context of standard system (it's way more important in strong club context where opener has wider variety of hands).

 

In Poland everybody plays double as penalty any time we are in FP situation which is silly but that's how things are.

[Zelandakh]

(NAE)

I think there is a clear difference between fit and non-fit auctions as I have learned it. Without a fit the pass essentially replaces a takeout double. With a fit the pass expresses doubt about whether to defend or bid on. In both situations you can invert the (primary) meaning of pass and double and there is a (minor) theoretical advantage in doing so.

[rhm]

As a rule detailed agreements help, if properly understood and you do not forget them. In my experience a big IF.

However, when it comes to forcing pass scenarios, I am not that convinced that people with complex detailed agreements do better. I tend to be conservative with few agreements.

 

This means I play few forcing passes, only when it is obvious.

The examples you mention are of course obvious.

The relative vulnerabilities does not change the forcing nature of a bidding sequence. I will not interpret a sequence differently because we are at unfavorable or favorable colors.

When a forcing pass is available, DBL simply suggest defense while pass tends to suggest offense, but of course not committing to it, while bidding on does.

 

1♥ (P) 2NT (5♣)

5♥ = Suggest 5♥ as a final contract. Offensive, but minimum hand. First or second round control in clubs, likely shortage. This is an inference from Bridge logic, not an agreement.

Pass = Leaves the decision to partner, unless partner's double is taken out, which suggests slam.

X = Suggests to defend. Not confident about 5♥

5♦ = forcing, interested in slam. Most likely a second suit (slam trial bid).

 

I know this is simple and stupid, but as good as anything. I am just not convinced that other agreements do better.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

My meta-rule is Above 4D, a double shows 2-losers in their suit

- "no slam, partner" (at least from my eyes).

Then a bid shows an expectable single in their suit.

That at least begins slam tries without the foolish/easy set case.

[Fluffy]

On live auctions you have 3 options when FP is available: pass, double and bid on.

 

I had a discussion with my partner about how frequent this actions should be, he thinks they should be around 33-33-33, while I think pass>double>bid on, for a frequency or nearly 50-35-15.

 

Making a FP when no fit has been stablished should show support for partner's suit.

[gnasher]

On live auctions you have 3 options when FP is available: pass, double and bid on.

 

I had a discussion with my partner about how frequent this actions should be, he thinks they should be around 33-33-33, while I think pass>double>bid on, for a frequency or nearly 50-35-15.

The third figure must depend on the auction. You're more likely to bid on in an auction where you've found a fit than one where you haven't.

[paulg]

This question is the system reason for reading Sabine Auken's book, since it is a topic where she goes into a lot of detail.

[bluecalm]

Making a FP when no fit has been stablished should show support for partner's suit.

 

That's the reason double = encouraging is slightly superior. You can have a lot of good hands, for example slam invites with strong suit or encouraging with fit/Hx in partner's suit. It would be nice to know which one you have before bidding anything.

If you are using pass/dbl "inversion" you know instantly that dbl is encouraging with support for partner's suit while pass being either penalty or some slam invite is easier to handle.

Again, it's more important if it goes:

1C* - p - 1H** - 4D

 

*-strong

**-spades

 

As opener can have literally anything and having "pass = encouraging or slam invite" here would be very difficult to handle. Also you may want to use pass->bid to show two suiters in which case having them mixed with encouraging hand with support in partner's suit would be disastrous.

In standard auctions it's not that important although it still feels more elegant and better to me.

[rhm]

That's the reason double = encouraging is slightly superior. You can have a lot of good hands, for example slam invites with strong suit or encouraging with fit/Hx in partner's suit. It would be nice to know which one you have before bidding anything.

If you are using pass/dbl "inversion" you know instantly that dbl is encouraging with support for partner's suit while pass being either penalty or some slam invite is easier to handle.

Again, it's more important if it goes:

1C* - p - 1H** - 4D

 

*-strong

**-spades

 

As opener can have literally anything and having "pass = encouraging or slam invite" here would be very difficult to handle. Also you may want to use pass->bid to show two suiters in which case having them mixed with encouraging hand with support in partner's suit would be disastrous.

In standard auctions it's not that important although it still feels more elegant and better to me.

I am old fashioned here and I do not see the point, why inversion really helps.

Maybe you can show us some complete deals, where you could modify hands to illustrate the advantage of inversion compared to standard.

Fit, which can exist in different degrees, is an important aspect, but not the only one.

Contracts at this level have been known to go down even with a good fit.

Exaggerating one aspect at the expense of others looks to me counterproductive.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

I am old fashioned here and I do not see the point, why inversion really helps.

Maybe you can show us some complete deals, where you could modify hands to illustrate the advantage of inversion compared to standard.

Fit, which can exist in different degrees, is an important aspect, but not the only one.

Contracts at this level have been known to go down even with a good fit.

Exaggerating one aspect at the expense of others looks to me counterproductive.

 

1)

1C opener:

x AKJxx xx AKJxx

 

1H bidder:

AQxxxx xxxx x Qx

 

1C* - p - 1H** - 4D

 

*-strong

**-spades

 

1C bidder wants to show a two suiter here. Playing the inversion it's an easy pass, and then 4H.

Playing standard partner doesn't know if pass encourages to compete in 4S or is some other hand and is stuck.

 

2)

Standard bidding we are vulnerable they are not:

 

1D - p - 1S - 5C

?

 

x Kxx AKJxxxx Ax nice slam invite in diamonds, we pass and...:

 

a)ATxxxxx Ax xxx x

b)ATxxxxx AQx x xx

 

Partner will be extatic to compete with both hands... in spades.

What is the problem you may ask, he doubles as he is not sure what we have and we bid our 5D... yes but what if we are dealt:

KQxx Kx AQxxxx x and want to encourage him to push to 5S ? He doesn't know which one we have... playing the inversion the problem disappears.

 

3)

2C* - p - 2S - 5D

?

 

You can imagine the rest... opener may have H/C two suiter or hand encouraging to bid 5S. Responder doesn't know which and can't act sensibly.

 

It's rarer in standard system as most FPs occur after 2/1 where responder suit is lower than opener's and it may somehow work out. Still, do you see any advantage of traditional style ? Advantages of inversion are clear and big even if rarely occuring.

[Zelandakh]

You can see an advantage of the inversion even without specific examples just by considering the slam try hands within pass. If pass suggests penalising then it is an overwhelming favourite to receive a X from partner, after which we have all of our slam tries available. If pass suggests competing then there is a reasonable chance partner will bid something, effectively preempting our slam investigations.

[MrAce]

You can see an advantage of the inversion even without specific examples just by considering the slam try hands within pass. If pass suggests penalising then it is an overwhelming favourite to receive a X from partner, after which we have all of our slam tries available. If pass suggests competing then there is a reasonable chance partner will bid something, effectively preempting our slam investigations.

 

Imo pass should not necessarily suggest bidding or penalizing. It should be something similar to " i have a hand which is hard to categorize, which is probably good both for defense and offense and i do not want to make you feel obligated with one or the other for the moment, unless i pull your double later which will be strongest"

[bluecalm]

Imo pass should not necessarily suggest bidding or penalizing. It should be something similar to " i have a hand which is hard to categorize, which is probably good both for defense and offense and i do not want to make you feel obligated with one or the other for the moment, unless i pull your double later which will be strongest"

 

Yup, doubling with those hands while passing the rest is still better.

[Zelandakh]

You are missing the point Timo. I was talking about the inversion where passing shows either a hand that wants to penalise or a slam try. Doubling instead would be the way of asking partner to decide. This was answering Rainer's question about why the inversion is better.

[rhm]

You are missing the point Timo. I was talking about the inversion where passing shows either a hand that wants to penalise or a slam try. Doubling instead would be the way of asking partner to decide. This was answering Rainer's question about why the inversion is better.

 

So in a nutshell:

 

Standard:

 

Pass = Partner to decide or slam try. Partners assumes the first.

Double = Defend

 

Inversion

 

Pass = Defend or slam try. Partner assumes Defend.

Double = Partner to decide

 

I still have difficulty seeing the big advantage of inversion. Each approach will have a slight advantage under some specific circumstances. Apart from that the difference looks to me mainly a psychological one.

 

It is true that under inversion partner is likely to double when you have a slam try and pass, giving you more options providing useful information to partner.

But in standard assume if I have a slam try and pass and partner bids on, which he would not under inversion, I have the valuable information that partner considers his hand offensive. This comes at least close to accepting a slam try.

To some extent the question boils down whether the information partner provides by bidding on when I have a slam try is more valuable to me or the additional room is to provide information by me to partner for him to decide.

 

To put it succinctly:

 

If I have a slam try

 

Under inversion I learn nothing about partner's hand unless it is an exceptional one, because he will have to double way too often.

Under standard partner's input is appreciated.

 

I can not see why I should be better placed in general under inversion.

However, I can easily see forgetting "unnatural" agreements in the heat of the battle. It is already difficult enough to be on the same wavelength whether a pass should be considered forcing.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

I still have difficulty seeing the big advantage of inversion. Each approach will have a slight advantage under some specific circumstances. Apart from that the difference looks to me mainly a psychological one.

 

Could you think of any example when classical approach has an advantage ?

I gave some for inversion. I have trouble imagining example for opposite approach.

 

Inversion

 

Pass = Defend or slam try

Double = Partner to decide

 

You often need a two suiter instead of a slam try. That is especially in strong club but also after 2C opening those might more useful than slam tries especially at 4 level.

[rhm]

Could you think of any example when classical approach has an advantage ?

I gave some for inversion. I have trouble imagining example for opposite approach.

I updated my previous contribution.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[bluecalm]

But in standard assume if I have a slam try and pass and partner bids on, which he would not under inversion, I have the valuable information that partner considers his hand offensive. This comes at least close to accepting a slam try.

 

In my view it never happens and is actually a problem because partner's bid often preempt our slam try (if it's higher suit) or makes it impossible for him to make sensible decision in the first place (because he doesn't know what our pass means he just knows it's some good hand but doesn't know which).

You are aiming at very specific situation where partner bids not knowing which kind of encouraging hand you have and that this somehow helps you when you have a slam try. While it is possible for that to happen you are missing on much bigger target: partner not knowing what our pass means is unable to compete sensibly on hands he wants to compete.

 

However, I can easily see forgetting "unnatural" agreements in the heat of the battle.

 

The question is what is natural and what isn't.

I've never understood why say:

1H - p - 1S - 3C

dbl is for takeout but:

 

1S -p - 2H - 3C

dbl becomes penalty

 

etc.

Here is simple natural rule:

"If we didn't set trumps double is for takeout".

Meanwhile: "double is for penalty when pass if forcing but t/o otherwise unless we established a fit then it's penalty as well, oh and also, do you play 3C 3S 5C p as forcing partner (because meaning of the double depends on it)?" requires a lot of agreements and adjusting.

I would say that if anything "classical" agreements are source of misunderstandings. Playing my simple rule you can manage even if you don't know if pass if forcing (worst case scenario is that you lose a slam try).

[gnasher]

Playing my simple rule you can manage even if you don't know if pass if forcing (worst case scenario is that you lose a slam try).

No, the worst cases are:

- You pass with a slam try, and partner passes it out because he thinks it was non-forcing.

- You pass thinking it's non-forcing, partner thinks it's a forcing-pass situation and doubles, you think that's for takeout and you take it out, partner thinks it's a slam try and bids slam.

 

There's no substitute for knowing your methods.

[rhm]

In my view it never happens and is actually a problem because partner's bid often preempt our slam try (if it's higher suit) or makes it impossible for him to make sensible decision in the first place (because he doesn't know what our pass means he just knows it's some good hand but doesn't know which).

You are aiming at very specific situation where partner bids not knowing which kind of encouraging hand you have and that this somehow helps you when you have a slam try. While it is possible for that to happen you are missing on much bigger target: partner not knowing what our pass means is unable to compete sensibly on hands he wants to compete.

Let me say that playing standard I very much support the view that a Forcing Pass at a high level is not encouraging (in the context of the bidding so far) but neutral.

It is only encouraging in the sense that I did not discourage further bidding with a double.

I leave the decision to partner whether to defend or go on.

All else being equal this should happen about 50% of the time since on average partner will be in at least as good a position to decide for the partnership than me, whether we should defend or go on.

Partner should never assume I have a slam try, because if that exists I will overrule him anyway.

So partner acts on the assumption I am undecided.

I understand when opponents preempt that there is guesswork, but partner should not have any doubt about the meaning of my pass.

It says I am uncertain what is best for us, maybe you do.

His decision should usually help me when I got a slam try.

If he doubles this should damp my slam aspirations. On the other side, if he keeps bidding so should I.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

In an auction where our possible actions distinguish between three ranges of offensive strength, we can play either:

Pass = medium or good

Double = bad

or

Pass = bad or good

Double = medium

In an auction where one of the actions offers a choice of strains, we can play either:

Pass = good or choice of strains

Double = bad

or

Pass = bad or good

Double = choice of strains

In both categories of auction, isn't the second method obviously better?

[Fluffy]

The question is what is natural and what isn't.

I've never understood why say:

1H - p - 1S - 3C

dbl is for takeout but:

 

1S -p - 2H - 3C

dbl becomes penalty

 

etc.

Here is simple natural rule:

"If we didn't set trumps double is for takeout".

Meanwhile: "double is for penalty when pass if forcing but t/o otherwise unless we established a fit then it's penalty as well, oh and also, do you play 3C 3S 5C p as forcing partner (because meaning of the double depends on it)?" requires a lot of agreements and adjusting.

I would say that if anything "classical" agreements are source of misunderstandings. Playing my simple rule you can manage even if you don't know if pass if forcing (worst case scenario is that you lose a slam try).

Its because some people find easier to remember this other rule:

 

If pass is forcing, double is penalty.

 

This doesn't need to be better nor worse than your rule.

[bluecalm]

No, the worst cases are:

- You pass with a slam try, and partner passes it out because he thinks it was non-forcing.

- You pass thinking it's non-forcing, partner thinks it's a forcing-pass situation and doubles, you think that's for takeout and you take it out, partner thinks it's a slam try and bids slam.

 

There's no substitute for knowing your methods.

 

By "lose a slam try" I meant that if you are not sure you bid something and go along.

If you are not sure playing standard methods you are basically screwed as you really need to know if your weak hand doubles now or passes say in infamous:

3C - 3S - 5C - ? which many people play as FP situation when we are vuln and they are not.

 

Playing the inversion if you are not sure if it's FP situation you are way more comfortable because double always means the same thing.

 

Its because some people find easier to remember this other rule:

 

If pass is forcing, double is penalty.

 

Even world players often have misunderstanding if it's FP situation or not. It's the best to have clear rules about where P is forcing but people don't and/or exceptions arise. If you allow for possibility tha sometimes situation you didn't discuss arises and it's not 100% clear if he pass is forcing then standard agreements are very risky while inversion isn't.

 

This doesn't need to be better nor worse than your rule.

 

I gave arguments why it's worse theoretically and there is no argument against it so far other that sometimes you find it useful having a slam try that partner bids something (and didn't preempt your slam try in the process).

I also gave arguments why it's more risky if are not 100% sure that every FP situation is discussed.

 

Also there are a lot of low level situation where even the biggest followers of "FP is forcing dbl is for penalty" change agreements because there it's just way worse to play dbl = penalty, for example:

 

1H - dbl - rdbl - 2S

Here pass as forcing is just inferior agreement as you really want partner having t/o double as his hand is about always balanced and he will be struggling for a bid once it's passed to him.

[rhm]

In both categories of auction, isn't the second method obviously better?

No, nothing is obvious here to me.

Rainer Herrmann