Forcing Pass Situations

[Echognome]

Shooting around some ideas with partner.

 

We talked about the following type auction:

 

(3♦) - 3♥ - (5♦) - ?

 

In the case where we're vulnerable and opps are not, would it make any sense to play pass as forcing?

 

Do any of your forcing pass agreements rely on vulnerability? Is there any merit in having such an agreement?

 

As usual my partner and I disagree about this issue and are eliciting outside opinions.

[Walddk]

No, there is no reason why pass is forcing. Pass should only be forcing if it's clear that the opponents are saving. Do we know that here? No!

 

Generally speaking, there are way too many forcing pass ghosts around. They should be very few and far between.

 

Roland

[flytoox]

I think it is sensible to play pass as forcing, but I agree there are not many this kind situations.

[cherdano]

In a similar auction (I think it was (2m)-2♠-(5m)) on vuegraph, I was once surprised that Eric Kokish (who was one of the commentators) suggested that pass might be forcing. I asked him privately whether he thought it should be forcing. He said yes, one should use it to distinguish several hand types (passing then pulling to new suit to suggest alternative strains, e.g.). Although "the occasional redouble happens". (I don't remember vulnerability.)

 

It's not forcing in my partnership, since our rules are rather simple. But certainly Eric Kokish has thought more about this than most of us (and I suspect it is forcing for many when vul vs not).

 

Arend

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

no, for me vul. does not play a role.

 

I cant answer your question regarding the

merrit of such a treatment, but I would like

to point out, that this treatment makes only

sense, if the vul. plays also a significant role

regarding the strength promised by the 3H

overcall.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

I have a friend (and very good player) who thinks this auction should be forcing. I just can't buy it though. You're just asking to get rewound when theres no guarantee you have anything. Maybe in 5 years I'll feel differently...

[Winstonm]

I have a friend (and very good player) who thinks this auction should be forcing. I just can't buy it though. You're just asking to get rewound when theres no guarantee you have anything. Maybe in 5 years I'll feel differently...

I can't buy this either - I was taught the sole reason for the forcing pass was so the opponents could not sacrifice undoubled. Someone either had to bid or double.

 

This situation can only occur when it is clearly "our" hand and the opponents are "clearly" sacrificing.

 

In the given auction there is no compelling reason to believe that the opponents are not bidding game to make. Advance sacrifices are hard to deal with, for sure, but the twist is sometimes these advances are "phantom". Pass in the given sequence should say I don't think we should double or bid on if you have the standard hand for your bid. Double should say: they screwed up. A bid should say I think this is our best course of action. The stronger message here is to have clearly defined minimum hands for the second seat action so third seat isn't hopelessly guessing in these situations.

 

Winston

[inquiry]

I will disagree with some very fine players here. Yes, pass should be forcing. Now this is a radical idea, but the principle here is sound. Your partner overcalled VUL versus non-vul 3♥. This was not based on a whim. The opponent has a huge fit and leaped to game. Maybe they hope to make, but the frequency is that they will not. And at this vulnerabilty, the majority of the time this will be an advanced save before you get a chance to show your values.

 

Like it or not, the winning strategy here seems to be for pass to be forcing. This does not work at any other vulnerabilty. When you are not vul, your parnter might overcall with less, and your opponents are less likley to go nuclear with a preempt. With both vul, your opponents are also less likely to take an advanced save, and both opener and responder are liklely to have better quaility stuff. When they are not vul, opener is more likely to open on "dirt" at the three level, and responder is more likely to bump the preempt.

 

For those of you who do not take vulnerabilty into consideration of forcing pass (I don't mean on auctions like this, this on is a very special case), you might want to read what Robson/Segal has to say about vulnerabilty and forcing pass.

 

BTW, playing with a partner with whom I have not discussed this type of auction, I would NEVER ASSUME the pass was forcing. This is not a text-book forcing pass situation. Some people play vul versus non-vul all passes over opening preempts at five level are forcing EVEN WHEN NEITHER partner has bid. Now that is too rich for me. And 1H - (4S), 1H - (5C), 1H - (5D) the pass is forcing too. That is just slightly too rich for me, even if I am vul and they are not.

[Al_U_Card]

Vulnerability surely plays a role, in the sense of making the sacrifice attempt more obvious. At unfavorable conditions, 3D-3S-5D say, your pard has shown enough that your random 7 count, (as you are a passed hand, unless RHO is unpassed prior to the 5D bid) could constitute enough to produce a vulnerable game. This situation would tend to favor a forcing pass sequence.

 

Indeed, the forcing pass situations (Eddie Kantar wrote a small book on the subject) and continuations were designed to clarify various defensive and offensive holdings of the non-sacrificing side. Doubling opps is a secondary consequence, finding the correct call is what counts.

 

In the above-mentioned sequence, pard has NOT shown the values for game (neither has your partnership because you are unpassed) so I would not consider it a forcing pass auction. Your pass, double or bid would only carry the normal connotations.

[Winstonm]

Although it is accurate that vulnerability makes the action "sound" more like an advance sacrifice, it is also true that the opponents cannot chose which vulnerability they want when responding hand holds:

 

void

xxx

KJxx

AQxxxx

 

And they peal 5D while we can't make even 3 of a major when they catch a diamond, 2 clubs and a club ruff, and a spade ruff and on top of that have the audacity to punish 5H with a double of their own.

 

While we sit there with:

 

KQx

AQJxxx

x

KJx

 

AJxxxx

Kx

x

xxxx

 

And wonder just whose book it was we read that said pass should be forcing?

 

Winston

[Al_U_Card]

Certainly the hand shown is not THAT random, as it has a decent S suit and a H preference. Pard's 3H bid was based on a 1st seat NV-vs V pre-empt and I would expect a decent 15 count with a 6 card suit. This sequence is NOT forcing (as far as I am concerned) but I would consider my D stiff and Kx of H as a reason for quietly bidding 5H and taking my lumps were that to be the case.

[mikeh]

For me, a pass is forcing only if:

 

1) we have bid (or committed to) game in an auction in which it is clear that we bid to make, or

 

2) we are in an auction that has established a force to a certain level and we have not yet reached it, or

 

3) A game-invite (by us) has been accepted

 

4) We have opened a strong 2♣

 

5) We have voluntarily bid game over a non-game opp preempt, or over a opp game level preempt at equal or favourable vul.

 

6) the opps were passing out in a partial, and your side voluntarily bid game and they bid over our contract

 

7) 3rd hand opp preempts, we double in direct seat and the opps raise to game, unless at unfavourable, pass is forcing

 

 

These rules were developed after several days of intensive coaching by Eric Kokish, altho my then-partner and I did not adopt all of his suggestions and I am not suggesting that our rules are exactly what he advocates.

 

You will see that the posted sequence would not be forcing. Nor, in my view, should it be. 3♥, even red v white, is not remotely forcing. Partner may have been under pressure and made an aggressive bid. The fact that the opps are not vulnerable does not, contrary to how some people seem to think, render their cards of less value than if they were vulnerable :lol:

 

And, given that we were in a partscore auction, what are we striving to protect by use of a forcing pass?

 

Finally, if pass is forcing, please let me play against you, so long as you alert. As the 5♦ bidder, bidding to make, my biggest problem is going to be keeping a straight face as your partner contemplates how he is going to choose to go -800: by bidding or by passing my redouble.

 

Pity the 3♥ bidder who overcalled on xx KQJ9xx xx AQx.... we'd all bid 3♥ on that, little knowing that we were going to be hung out to dry should the opps bid 5♦

[Al_U_Card]

 

Pity the 3♥ bidder who overcalled on xx KQJ9xx xx AQx.... we'd all bid 3♥ on that, little knowing that we were going to be hung out to dry should the opps bid 5♦

I agree with pretty much everything, except I DO pity the pard of the player who, with that mush (xx in D and 12 hcp) bids 3H Red vs White.....as he is the one doing the hanging and drying :lol:

[Echognome]

Thanks all for your input. I was definitely on the side of not varying your treatments at all by vulnerability.

 

My argument was that if partner has a good heart suit and nothing else, say a hand like:

 

Jx

AKJ10xxx

x

xxx

 

he will want to show his hearts even though he is not sure who makes what. He is also short in diamonds and knows it might be tough on partner to balance. However, making such a bid under pressure (and maybe you wouldn't), is going to put even more pressure on your side if this now puts you in a forcing pass situation. And if you are overcalling on fewer hands it is putting more pressure on partner in the balancing position.

 

I also made the argument that responder may have been under some pressure after the overcall if he didn't have a penalty double, nor a heart stop, but yet had the values for game. He might be guessing that 5♦ makes but would happily double or redouble us if we ventured into the auction.

 

Partner understood this but believe it was a frequency issue. In other words, he felt that the vast majority of the time the opponents would be bidding 5♦ as a sacrifice. Thus having a forcing pass available would help us find our right level and also help in the decision to declare/defend.

[MickyB]

A lot of responding hands that would otherwise have bid 3NT will become 5♦ bids if the opps play this pass as forcing.