[mgoetze]

---

Vugraph commentators were not quite able to agree whether EW should be in a forcing pass situation here.

[wyman]

not imo

[FrancesHinden]

Given that 5C could easily be making and they could have the majority of the HCP, it doesn't look forcing to me.

p.s. my husband's currently commentating. I hope he agrees with me.

[broze]

Will they often have the majority of the high card points though, with a passed hand opposite a preempt? I have to admit I would read a pass as forcing but it is certainly ambiguous.

[rmnka447]

Not absolutely forcing because opener just can't tell who has what. I'd expect the 4 S bidder to double with good values, bid on with distribution, and just pass with anything else.

[MrAce]

Forcing pass is one of those things that vary among different players/pdships and their style.

I am aware our side didnt show anything that was a sign of strength. But thats not always possible to show anyway just like in this auction. Then we look at other things, for example pd is not supposed to bid 4♠ unless he believes we at least have a good shot at it, for example one of the opps is coming from pass and raising his pd's preempt suit to 5 after we bid game etc etc..

The priority when playing a forcing pass for that pair becomes their governing rule imo.

1-If the priority for that pair is to make sure they dont DBL making games by opps, then this one posted here is not a forcing pass for that pair or pairs.

2-If the priority is to make more accurate decisions, even when we didnt (or did not have the chance to) create a forcing pass auction by looking at opps behaviour in the auction, then this is a forcing pass.

Having said that eventhough 2nd style looks better on paper or sounds better to our ear, unfortunately it has some other downsides than just letting opponents make more doubled contracts. If forcing pass was such a miracle tool that solves your problems magically about what to do, then i would be all for the 2nd option, and i am pretty sure so would be a lot of players here. But unfortunately it doesnt make miracles to one's hand evaluation or bidding judgement. Some people even call it " pass transfers the headache to partner"

It is kinda ironic for me to say these, because i was indeed an agressive forcing pass user not long time ago.

[benlessard]

Ive possibly already stretched by bidding 4S. (I could have only a 3S bid) so my normal FP rules tell me its off. However im pretty sure that with uneven vuln (v/nv or nv/V) FP is superior.

Desinging rules for FP isnt easy.

[gnasher]

A passed-hand opposite a preempt won't make game through power. If they can make something at the five-level with at most half of the high cards, it will be because of a big fit. If they have a big fit, we probably do too. In that case we will often have a cheap save, or both games may make.

Having a forcing pass at our disposal will facilitate either bidding to make or bidding to save, and the risk-reward ratio is good - the cost of doubling a making game is much less than the cost of a double-game swing. Hence I think pass should be forcing.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-22, 02:18

[mgoetze]

---

I'm sure West wishes he could have bid 4♦ as a FNJ. Anyway, after the start given above, East doubled to collect -800. In the other room,

---

+100 due to the offside ♦K.

[Phil]

Forcing. Falls under the rule that a raise of a preempt when they are a passed hand creates a force.

I was watching the other table when this happened and I thought it was interesting ATB. Personally, I don't like the 5♣ call.

BTW - what about playing 4M as 'constructive' in 1♠ - (4♣) - ? and 4♦ as a signoff in either M? It seems you lose when partner cannot work out your hand at the five level, but you add in a layer of slam tries.

[WellSpyder]

Phil, on 2012-March-22, 10:39, said:

Forcing. Falls under the rule that a raise of a preempt when they are a passed hand creates a force.

Not part of my rules - hence my vote for NF. But you and gnasher are quite persuasive, so maybe I'll consider adding it. I do think it is important to have relatively simple rules, though, so that both members of the partnership can be confident they are on the same page.

Quote

I was watching the other table when this happened and I thought it was interesting ATB. Personally, I don't like the 5♣ call.

Why do you feel the need to assign blame? Looks a pretty reasonable contract to me by my standards - I'd be happy to get through a session without getting to a worse one!

BTW, what do people feel about North's 5♣ bid at the first table? I know there is a good fit but there do seem to be an awful lot of losers to be playing at the 5-level when vulnerable....

[Phil]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-22, 11:45, said:

Why do you feel the need to assign blame? Looks a pretty reasonable contract to me by my standards - I'd be happy to get through a session without getting to a worse one!

True, but you'd rather not be there would you? You need the ♦K with the preemptor, and you need to dodge a heart ruff. All in all it seems like a dog to me.

[nigel_k]

I vote non-forcing. You can make a decent case for it to be forcing because the 5♣ bidder is a passed hand, but then you have a large set of extra possible auctions where you need to make sure you are in agreement. In FP situations, it's much more important that both partners agree, than having the absolutely optimal agreement.

I have no idea who North was, but 5♣ is horrible. It will never be a good save against game, and they may well not bid slam since they are already forced to guess at a high level. Or, opponents were maybe going to bid a failing slam but choose to take the 800 on offer. It won't be a huge gain even if they double and slam makes. It doesn't consume space either.

The only possible excuse is that Larry Cohen is a good player and he told people explicitly to do this instead of trying to use their judgment.

[skaftij]

NF

OK, 5♣is ugly, but here the gain was 14 imps and the risk was 4 imps. The outcome will be different next time.

[gszes]

one simple rule (of many) to create forcing pass

If opps are bidding what looks like an "obvious"
sacrifice it establishes FP for us. The more
accurate the opps bidding the better the rule
works.

If the 5c bidder was not a passed hand FP would
be OFF.

[dake50]

Forcing pass for a particular clarity.
Double promises 2xlosers in their suit,
so no slam (from his side, at least).
Now a bid or PASS shows single or
better control for slam.
Yuk, that this encourages 6S off DK.
Unless partner doubles taking 500 or 800.
I think he should, leaving pass then pull on West. He QUITS.

[benlessard]

Not bidding 5C with north hand is plain bad bridge, you have 4 trumps nothing defensive in their suit and you want to pass ?

I would preeemt only to 3 clubs since overbidding by 3 tricks RED is not my style. I want partner to raise me with 2 working cards.

[benlessard]

Not bidding 5C with north hand is plain bad bridge, you have 4 trumps nothing defensive in their suit and you want to pass ?

I would preeempt only to 3 clubs since overbidding by 3 tricks RED and being 1 trump short is not my style. I want partner to raise me with 2 working cards.

[MrAce]

benlessard, on 2012-March-26, 05:27, said:

Not bidding 5C with north hand is plain bad bridge, you have 4 trumps nothing defensive in their suit and you want to pass ?

I would preeempt only to 3 clubs since overbidding by 3 tricks RED and being 1 trump short is not my style. I want partner to raise me with 2 working cards.

What surprises me the most is, people make a huge deal about their decisions by looking at their own 13 cards. Eventhough after playing years and years of bridge they know it is often the case what opponents hold also affects outcome of our choice.

You pass 4♠ and they play it, making, while your teammates go down in slam. Fine.

How about if the minor aces that EW hold were flipped ? Your teammates would be making 6♠ while they missed it.

I am not saying N should pass 4♠, 5♣ kills their RKCB, which is good enough reason to bid. But also has the downside of dragging them into a making slam which they would have never bid, had we decided to leave them alone. The guy bid 4♠ under pressure, he has a HUGE variety of hands that would bid 4♠, 4♣ preempt basically did the damage already, so some people may think passing 4♠ has sme merits and i dont think thats neccesarily bad bridge.