May the Force be with You

[Vampyr]

Is it reasonable to have an agreement to not pass forcing bids? If not, is it reasonable to have an agreement not to pass bids that are unequivocally game forcing? Assume no psyche has occurred.

[Kaitlyn S]

Is it reasonable to have an agreement to not pass forcing bids? If not, is it reasonable to have an agreement not to pass bids that are unequivocally game forcing? Assume no psyche has occurred.

Why would anybody object to someone having such an agreement? (I assume that someone complained about someone else having this agreement, thus the post. If that's not the reason, then of course it's reasonable to have such an agreement.)

[manudude03]

If you have an agreement to pass a forcing bid, then the bid itself isn't forcing any more. I suppose you might pass an auction like 1S-2C-2S-3C-3H-4C if playing 2/1, but things like that would be very much the exception rather than the norm.

[Vampyr]

If you have an agreement to pass a forcing bid, then the bid itself isn't forcing any more.

 

Yes, I realise that. I am not concerned with having an agreement to pass a forcing bid; a pass would be anti-systemic.

 

My regular partner has said he will not play with me any more if I ask him to promise not to pass forcing bids, ever. He does not think it is reasonable to have such an arrangement. These passes, by the way, have never been successful.

[johnu]

These passes, by the way, have never been successful.

 

:D

[ggwhiz]

I had one. Partner opened 1♥, I bid 1♠ and she rebid 3♦ - game forcing

 

I passed that with Qxxx, void, x, JTxxxxxx for -3 and 85% so over a few decades I'm 1 for 1

 

However, a partner that consistently does it for a loss and insists on the discretion to do it again or won't play with ME!!!! OK, fine.

 

How about the guy who's partner told him next time you psyche you owe me $20. That night he said "Here's that $20 bucks I owe you, 1♠". If you want to continue without the "never" at least put a bottle of wine on it, maybe buy him one if it actually works.

[barmar]

Yes, I realise that. I am not concerned with having an agreement to pass a forcing bid; a pass would be anti-systemic.

I think the point was that if you don't agree that it's not passable, then it's not really forcing.

 

In other words, his philosophy seems to be that there's no such thing as a forcing bid. Bids show various things about your hand (strength and shape), but he's allowed to exercise judgement about what to do with this information (I assume clearly artificial bids are not an issue).

 

This approach can easily backfire. Sometimes we have hands that are difficult to describe. In many standard methods, the only way for opener to establish a game force is to make a jump shift, which ostensibly shows 4+ cards in the second suit. But if your shape is 6331, you don't have an appropriate suit to jump to, so you typically pick one of the 3-card suits (usually not the one partner bid). This is usually safe because partner isn't supposed to pass it, so you'll get a chance to rebid the first suit to clarify.

 

I'm sure he thinks this is a minor issue -- hands like this don't come up that often, and passing forcing bids is also rare, so the chance of them happening on the same hand is too low to worry about.

 

Maybe it's worth exploring why he feels the need to be allowed to do this. Does he frequently respond to opening bids with really weak hands, so that you can't assume that game is reasonable when you hold 19-20 HCP? Do you agree that these bids are reasonable in the first place? I try to avoid them myself -- if I can't stand for partner to make a forcing rebid, I don't respond to his opening in the first place.

 

If your ideas about basic bidding principles are inconsistent with each other, it doesn't bode well for the future of the partnership. Maybe you should nip it in the bud (I hope I haven't just broken you up with Paul!).

[nige1]

An agreement to pass a call that is forcing by agreement, is an oxymoron.

 

When a player passes a "forcing bid", then he's forgotten his agreement, or, more usually, he's economical with the truth about his agreement.

 

For example, with ♠ x x x ♥ x x x ♦ K x x x x ♣ x x and the auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ - Pass. many players would regard their 1♦ response and their Pass to be automatic by (implicit) agreement. Paradoxically, some would still misdescribe 1♠ as "forcing".

[Cyberyeti]

An agreement to pass a call that is forcing by agreement, is an oxymoron.

 

When a player passes a "forcing bid", then usually, he's forgotten his agreement, or he's economical with the truth about his agreement.

 

For example, with ♠ x x x ♥ J x x ♦ K x x x x ♣ x x, when the auction starts 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠ - Pass. many players would regard their 1♦ response and Pass to be automatic by (implicit) agreement but, paradoxically, some would still describe 1♠ as "forcing".

 

We describe it as "forcing if I had my 1♦" and then we'll point out that we do occasionally respond light.

[barmar]

Paradoxically, some would still misdescribe 1♠ as "forcing".

I would describe it as "wide ranging and rarely passed". Other words I've used are "almost forcing" or "mostly forcing".

 

I don't consider any of these to be oxymoronic, or nonsensical like "almost pregnant" or "mostly dead" (shout out to "The Princess Bride").

[mycroft]

I describe it as "not forcing, but never passed." For bridge values of "never", that's right. "Inconceivable!"

 

To the original question, Berkowitz and Manley's almost first comment on the strong club opener in their Precision book is to the effect of "so, let's pretend you've already had that 'once in a lifetime' pass hand, and you've done it. With this hand, bid."

 

Jeff Goldsmith's Imperious Rules of Bridge include: "Forcing bids are forcing. It might be right to pass a forcing bid on this hand, but you lose ten times over when partner jumps the next few times, fearing your passing."

 

My opinion is that when you deliberately pass a forcing bid, you are psyching - "gross and deliberate deviation from system". As such, to quote Da Emperor again: "If you psych and your side gets a bad result, it's your fault, regardless of how moronic an action partner took later on."

 

My opinion - well, I psych a lot (relatively). If partner asked me not to, I would stop.

[mikestar13]

Is it reasonable to have an agreement to not pass forcing bids? If not, is it reasonable to have an agreement not to pass bids that are unequivocally game forcing? Assume no psyche has occurred.

 

 

Calling a bid forcing is in itself a agreement not to pass it. Passing a forcing bid as a matter of bridge judgement is not an issue unless it is done so frequently it becomes an implicit agreement. IMHO, your partner insists you respect his exercise of judgement--which may be reasonable if his judgement is good enough Were I good enough to partner with Kit Woolsey, I'd trust his judgement. Were I partnered with an average club (self-styled) pro, not so much.

[johnu]

Bids show various things about your hand (strength and shape), but he's allowed to exercise judgement about what to do with this information (I assume clearly artificial bids are not an issue).

 

My memory is just good enough to remember some of the details, but not enough of them, about a Bridge World Master Solvers Club problem.

 

IIRC, the problem hand nothing but a long string of clubs (8 or 9???)after a 2♣ opening, something like.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s2h32d32ct9876543&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

I can't remember if pass or 2♦ got the top score.

[MrAce]

My regular partner has said he will not play with me any more if I ask him to promise not to pass forcing bids, ever. He does not think it is reasonable to have such an arrangement. These passes, by the way, have never been successful.

 

So what is the problem? It's a win win situation.

He either gives up passing forcing bids or you get rid of a torturous partnership.

[MinorKid]

My memory is just good enough to remember some of the details, but not enough of them, about a Bridge World Master Solvers Club problem.

 

IIRC, the problem hand nothing but a long string of clubs (8 or 9???)after a 2♣ opening, something like.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s2h32d32ct9876543&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

I can't remember if pass or 2♦ got the top score.

 

Not surprised to find partner with 4 aces and 3 kings.

[Kaitlyn S]

So what is the problem? It's a win win situation.

He either gives up passing forcing bids or you get rid of a torturous partnership.

It's not exactly win-win if this partner is also her significant other

[masse24]

These passes, by the way, have never been successful.

 

Never? Yet your partner still persists in his/her desire to treat it as non-forcing?

 

If my partner ever passes a forcing bid --- he had better be right. All is forgiven when partner's judgment proves correct!

[rmnka447]

I think it's entirely reasonable to expect partner to respond to forcing bids and game forcing bids. But to get partner to never ever pass a forcing bid is a bit harsh. There does come up, very rarely, the hand where it's right to do so. By "very rarely", I mean once or twice in years, not weeks or months.

 

Passing forcing bids with any regularity undermines partnership trust and confidence. The destructive part comes when the person making the forcing bids starts to alter what they do to compensate for the possibility of being passed out. Then, the partnership is doomed.

 

But even if one doesn't alter any behavior for fear of being passed out, there's an emotional toll that occurs when passed that can affect that player's play and concentration. That also makes it difficult for the partnership to do its best. Ultimately, if the passing of forcing bids occurs enough, you might have to consider ending the partnership.

 

If, as Kaitlyn suggests, ending the partnership isn't a good option, then there are some things to help partner alter their behavior:

 

1) Make it clear that the onus for whatever happens after a forcing bid is passed belongs to the person who passed.

 

2) Carefully accumulate full information on the hands where bids are passed for a period of time -- both good and bad. Then, at some future time, find a time and place to sit down and DISPASSIONATELY go over the hands and results. The key is to maintain a good relationship with your partner and focus on how to improve the results on the hands. You might start with something like this:

 

"Partner, I value our partnership and you as a partner. But, I noticed a number of hands where we didn't get the best results. I'd like to go over them and see if we can find a way to do better on them."

 

Then focus on the specifics of each hand without judgment. In doing so, it's important to get partner's feedback by seeking partner's thoughts and suggestions. Hopefully, the concrete reality of specific hands will help partner recognize the problem and help get buy in on how to fix the problem. By concentrating on the hands and finding a solution, you also avoid criticizing partner as a person. When you get done, you should have a list of one or more things that should be done to improve results. It's important to go back over that list to make sure what's agreed and who's responsible for each.

 

3) There's always the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" option. If partner insists on being able to pass forcing bids, then make it clear that you will also operate under the exact same restriction.

[johnu]

Player 1 - Why did you jump to game/slam?

Player 2 - I was afraid you would pass if I bid ___ ?

Player 1 - But that's forcing in our system

Player 2 - Except when you decide to pass....

[Phil]

I've done this a few times and it's worked well but I don't make a habit out of it.

 

There's FORCING and then there's forcing and then there's forcing unless you've totally misrepresented your hand previously.

[m1cha]

It seems to me that there is a disagreement on how often these passes are successful or not. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he may want to stick with them.

 

I suggest you do what ggwhiz suggested: put a bottle of wine on it or a bar of chocolate. He gives you if it costs an IMP, you give him if it wins an IMP. This will create a multiple win-win situation:

 

1. You either win the contract or you win a present.

2. After a few months you will be able to remember who bought how many presents.

3. You can analyse the situations and you will both learn from it (and if he learns more than you, that's just find with you, I guess).

4. In the end perhaps you may both feel fine - you because you managed to reduce these passes by 85 % and he because he keeps the liberty of passing very occasionally (and with better judgmement than now).

[barmar]

It seems to me that there is a disagreement on how often these passes are successful or not. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he may want to stick with them.

I suspect this is true of most disagreements about bidding style. And the reason they persist is selective memory biased by preferences.

 

I have an occasional partner who really likes to make Michaels and Unusual 2NT bids with 5-4 in his suits, because he likes to be able to get into the auction. I don't like it when he does this, because I never know how high to compete.

 

He mostly remembers the times that it works, because they confirm his belief. I notice the times that we overbid and got punished because I played for him to have the traditional shape. I could stop assuming that, but then when he does have 5-5 or better, and I should have competed, we'll miss out. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

[helene_t]

An agreement to pass a call that is forcing by agreement, is an oxymoron.

Yes.

 

Moreover, passing a forcing bid is ethically problematic. Opps (or TD) could suspect that you are not disclosing your agreements correctly, that you are fielding a misbid (somehow figured out that partner doesn't have the values for his forcing bid) or that you have UI which makes passing the forcing bid attractive.

 

I suppose you can pass a forcing bid if you have psyched yourself or if opps' manerisms limit the values partner can have.

 

Maybe you could argue that if you play some not-so-well-thought-through system you may occasionally run into situations in which you are in a force according to your formal agreements but not according to GBK, and that you can pass in such situations. But then you are not passing a forcing bid, rather you are following the meta-agreement that GBK trumps formal agreements.

[Vampyr]

Yes.

 

Moreover, passing a forcing bid is ethically problematic. Opps (or TD) could suspect that you are not disclosing your agreements correctly, that you are fielding a misbid (somehow figured out that partner doesn't have the values for his forcing bid) or that you have UI which makes passing the forcing bid attractive.

 

I suppose you can pass a forcing bid if you have psyched yourself or if opps' manerisms limit the values partner can have.

 

Maybe you could argue that if you play some not-so-well-thought-through system you may occasionally run into situations in which you are in a force according to your formal agreements but not according to GBK, and that you can pass in such situations. But then you are not passing a forcing bid, rather you are following the meta-agreement that GBK trumps formal agreements.

 

Mainly this happens when responder did not have sound values for a response.

 

But if you are sorry you showed the values for a response, it is too late to try and do something about it. That ship has sailed.

 

At least, that's the way I see it.

[helene_t]

It sounds like this is mostly about auctions like

1M-1NT

3m-pass!

 

and

 

1c-1M

reverse-pass!

 

where responder didn't have enough for the traditional meaning of a response and reasons that since he was allowed to pass the opening he can pass now also.

 

Maybe "unlimited, and forcing unless partner has a subminimal hand" would be a reasonable description if this is what partner insists on. It should be made clear that opener does not fabricate a 3NT rebid or such out of fear that a reverse or jump shift will be passed - opener just bids according to system, and if responder decides to pass it is his responsibility.

 

This may or may not be a good idea but at least it is not an oxymoron.