Can Pass be an LA?

[eagles123]

Matchpoints

 

regardless of hand, is pass an LA?

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p3c3s4c4s5cpp]133|100[/hv]

 

 

Thanks,

 

Eagles

[blackshoe]

Yes.

[pescetom]

Another yes.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p3c3s4c4s5cpp]133|100| eagles123' Matchpoints regardless of hand, is pass an LA?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pass is probably a LA but, IMO, it depends on East;s hand and EW agreements.

e.g. for some pairs, 4♣ is key-card. West forgets to alert, and then bids 5♣, out-of-tempo.[/hv]

[Vampyr]

Yes.

[pran]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p3c3s4c4s5cpp]133|100| eagles123' Matchpoints regardless of hand, is pass an LA?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pass is probably a LA but, IMO, it depends on East;s hand and EW agreements.

e.g. for some pairs, 4♣ is key-card. West forgets to alert, and then bids 5♣, out-of-tempo.[/hv]

For which hand?

The diagram makes me understand that the question is if pass is LA for North, but then why does it depend on East's hand and EW agreements?

 

I feel that the real question is whether the pass by South over 5♣ is forcing i.e. requesting either Double or 5♠ from North?

[gordontd]

I think the question is a bit too cryptic. I wonder if you are suggesting that the logic of the auction is that you should either bid or double. But often it's not so clear who is making what, and you may have already won the auction by discouraging them from bidding slam.

[pran]

I think the question is a bit too cryptic. I wonder if you are suggesting that the logic of the auction is that you should either bid or double. But often it's not so clear who is making what, and you may have already won the auction by discouraging them from bidding slam.

My question is cryptic (mine or OP's)?

 

I simply do not understand from OP for which hand (West or North) the question is if pass is LA.

 

The way I read this auction is that East has made a preemptive 3♣ opening bid, South has shown a good hand with spades and North has raised to game.

 

Now South may have a problem whether to bid 5♠ or double and I know many pairs where his pass her simply means: "Partner, I leave the decision to you".

 

If that is the partnership understanding between North and South in situations like this then pass is hardly any LA for North regardless of what cards are held by East.

[sanst]

Yes, but 7NT, 5♦, 6♣ or even a IB is. The way you put this, makes it a nonsensical question, a question that doesn’t make sense.

[Cyberyeti]

Providing 4♣ is merely a preemptive raise then no it's not a LA, they're preempting, you've bid game to make, S's pass is forcing

[gordontd]

My question is cryptic (mine or OP's)?

 

The original poster. I said "the question"; you asked three questions. I also didn't place my post as a response to yours.

[pran]

Providing 4♣ is merely a preemptive raise then no it's not a LA, they're preempting, you've bid game to make, S's pass is forcing

That was my primary understanding, but then I found:

 

Pass is probably a LA but, IMO, it depends on East;s hand and EW agreements.

e.g. for some pairs, 4♣ is key-card. West forgets to alert, and then bids 5♣, out-of-tempo.

rather confusing unless the question rather was whether pass by West was LA.

 

I just cannot see how the dependence on East's hand and EW agreements can be relevant when judging North's call, he doesn't know East's hand at this time.

[sanst]

I just cannot see how the dependence on East's hand and EW agreements can be relevant when judging North's call, he doesn't know East's hand at this time.

But North’s hand and the NS agreements are essential to make a judgement. I, for one, don’t assume that the players’ system is about the same as mine or that “everybody plays it that way”. Directing on that assumption is basically wrong.

[pran]

But North’s hand and the NS agreements are essential to make a judgement. I, for one, don’t assume that the players’ system is about the same as mine or that “everybody plays it that way”. Directing on that assumption is basically wrong.

Of course.

But then why the reference to East's hand and EW agreements (by nige1)?

[blackshoe]

Rather than argue about what the original poster meant, maybe we should just ask him to clarify his intention?

[gordontd]

Rather than argue about what the original poster meant, maybe we should just ask him to clarify his intention?

I thought I had, but he seems to have disappeared!

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p3c3s4c4s5cpp]133|100| Sorry. Sven is right: I misread the diagram.

The question is "Is Pass an LA for North?"

It's still a question of agreements, as Sven points out.

According to North-South agreements, does South's 3♠ create a forcing pass context?

If so, then Pass is not an LA for North.

[/hv]

[pescetom]

According to North-South agreements, does South's 3♠ create a forcing pass context?

If so, then Pass is not an LA for North.

 

Is it logical for South's 3♠ to create a forcing pass context in this precise auction?

[pran]

Is it logical for South's 3♠ to create a forcing pass context in this precise auction?

Not necessarily, but after North volunteered game with his 4♠ bid I think South has only three options over the 5♣ bid:

a: Bidding 5♠ for game,

b: doubling 5♣ for penalty or

c: let North decide.

Consequently the PASS by South now should be forcing.

[barmar]

I've generally found forcing pass logic difficult to understand, so maybe I shouldn't weigh in.

 

But as I understand it, a forcing pass is established when your side voluntarily bids game on power, expecting to make it. This isn't always the case after preempts. In this auction, do NS know whether they're bidding to make or sacrifice?

[pran]

I've generally found forcing pass logic difficult to understand, so maybe I shouldn't weigh in.

 

But as I understand it, a forcing pass is established when your side voluntarily bids game on power, expecting to make it. This isn't always the case after preempts. In this auction, do NS know whether they're bidding to make or sacrifice?

I should take it for granted here that the 3♣ opening and the 4♣ "support" was for sacrifice.

 

And one of my fundamental principles is to never sacrifice against a sacrifice.

[eagles123]

Sorry, should have returned to this sooner. it was a UI situation, I was in the hotseat and doubled after a tank from partner with the world's most obvious double (agreed by opp - who rightfully called director) but I was just interested in theory. Thanks all