[mikeh]

Cascade, on Oct 23 2008, 01:50 PM, said:

This is true but even if I did a mere game force does not create a forcing pass for me.

1.  Those that play 3♥ as forcing in my observation often shade the values for that bid - that must diminish the utility of a forcing pass

2. On this hand with a stiff spade and a stiff club south doubled the same call he would make with a much stronger club holding because he was unwilling to make a forcing pass or take some action without sure knowledge of a playable fit

3. My opponents are not always insane when they are also making constructive bids (4♦ fit showing) sometimes they can make something - here 5♣ is only so poor because of the stiff spade and stiff diamond in the NS hands

4. Forcing pass is problematic on hands like this where we have not had explict suit agreement

For these reasons and probably some others we do not play forcing passes based on a mere game force.  Especially not in an auction where we have been pushed around.  Usually a strength showing slam try would establish a force.

Wayne, I think that you are going to find yourself in a tiny, tiny minority on this.

1. So what if 'some players' stretch their 3♥ call? It is still a game force. Catering to the possibility that partner may not hold an actual game force is equivalent to advocating that responder with a balanced 9 count should pass a 15-17 1N, because some players stretch their opening 1N bid.

Indeed, using a FP here actually assists those who have overbid... they get to say double to announce a poor offensive hand in context... a double of 5♣ is not usefully played as 'I've got them nailed' unless you are accustomed to playing only against idiots. The double is more usefully played as: in the context of the auction so far, I strongly doubt that bidding on is wise. BTW, my comments apply to the traditional approach to fp: use of the meckwell inversion would change the comments.

2. the double has relatively little to do with lack of a fit. Indeed, for me, the 4♠ call announced that we have a playable trump suit... partner was himself in a fp situation, so when he bid 4♠ he showed a suit such as he has (given that I am looking at the Ace). In addition, as I posted earlier, there is some reason to suspect that partner holds a secondary fit in hearts.. there are, after all, only so many diamonds in the deck, and partner, with short hearts, no spade Ace, nothing in clubs, and some diamond length/strength would probably not bid over 4♦.


3. I am puzzled by your assumption that 4♦ was constructive. I would far more readily interprete it as saying that we have the values to save... not to make... in 5♣, and, by the way, I think that a diamond lead would be a good idea, and/or that if they bid slam, look at your shape and decide whether, knowing that I probably have 8 or 9 minor suit cards, a high-level safe might be a good idea.

Surely when we hold an opening hand and partner opens and freely rebids (albeit in a forcing situation) the odds are very high that the opps are saving?

4. I disagree entirely.... I could hardly disagree more. A fp is extemely useful when we have been jammed and have been unable to decipher the extent of our fits and values. Absent a fp, we must guess. Do we have a better fit than I currently know? I had better bid. Do we have no fit? I had better double. The one thing I can't do is pass! It might be my lead against an undoubled favourable vul save! No, while fp operates well when a fit is known, and the only question is level, it works just as well, and, arguably, better, when the extent of the fit is in doubt.

[fachiru]

My guess is that you were probably the dealer on this one, Eddie, and I feel your frustation
I only see a bad bid there, but it's huge IMO: the double; everything normal up to that point.

Instead of X, I think I'd try a 5♦ cue; this is slam try in ♠ mainly (as the 4♠ bid showed a strong suit).
As dealer, after hearing the ♦ cue, I'd simplify things by jumping to 6♥ offering a choice of slams.

[Edmunte1]

No, Vali (fachiru), i was South, and it's nothing about frustration here, just discussing a tough board. Here are some points of view about this board:

-4♠ is some kind of underbid, Ken has some good points here when he says that most of the time partner holds club shortage and at least 2 out of three key cards (♠A, ♥K, ♦A). I agree that this is definitely a spades hand, but 4♠ doesn't show a semisolid spade suit, just tries to find the right denomination (probably with KJ10xxxx or KQ10xxxx or KQJ10xx would be also the normal call). But i admit there's some risk in bidding over 4♠, so i consider this call understable. But I'll put another question: What would have bid North over 5♣ (or 4NT for smart bidders)?

- Double is a good call. After a diamond lead, we lose completely our comunication. Just one heart less and one diamond more (or ♥Q missing) and 5♠ is down, even with 7 semisolid spades in partner's hand.

-Passing the double, at second chance, seems pretty bad. 4♠ didn't show such a good hand (semisolid 7 carder, great ♥ pieces, ♦ shortage). I agree that i'm resulting a little, but North should have tried to recover after the initial underbid.

[Cascade]

I am sure that I am in the minority.

Over 5♣ there are loosely three actions:

1. Pass

2. Double

3. Bid on

It seems to me that as long as you utilize these in sensible ways that you will have a reasonable method.

There are also loosely three possible outcomes to the bidding:

1. We play 5♣ undoubled

2. We play 5♣ doubled

3. We play some higher contract

Perhaps I am influenced by a style that likes to bid a lot in the early auction but I feel that a method that keeps all three options in the picture is likely to be more efficient than a different method that eliminates one of the options.

So we would utilize these options as follows:

1. Pass - I have bid enough already and have nothing more I wish to contribute at this stage

2. Double - this is dependent on the previous auction and whether or not we have found a fit and how well we have described our hands. On some auctions it is penalties and therefore discouraging partner from bidding on. On others it is takeout and suggesting but not compelling partner from bidding on

3. Bid - this shows some extra distribution and reason to bid on. These bids when both partners have shown constructive hands are by their nature at least mildly invitational to slam.

In fourth seat after partner has passed (or doubled) obviously we have the additional information that comes from partner's action or inaction.

1. Pass I don't have a defensive hand or any reason to bid on - occasionally we end up defending undoubled when we could have extracted a penalty. Sometimes this is only one-off and it is no big deal.

2. Double again this would be context dependent - sometimes penalties, sometimes takeout. We can double (especially for penalties) a little more freely in fourth seat than in direct seat.

3. Bid again with extra distribution and in principle mild slam interest although the fact that partner has passed NF in front of us means that it is very unlikely she will raise to slam.

[han]

Quote

Perhaps I am influenced by a style that likes to bid a lot in the early auction but I feel that a method that keeps all three options in the picture is likely to be more efficient than a different method that eliminates one of the options.

It seems to me that the whole idea of playing a forcing pass is that by eliminating one of the options you can use all three bids to choose between the two remaining options. When you are in a GF auction this seems better. (I'd like to say more efficient, but I am not sure what the word efficient means in this context)

[Cascade]

han, on Oct 24 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

Quote

Perhaps I am influenced by a style that likes to bid a lot in the early auction but I feel that a method that keeps all three options in the picture is likely to be more efficient than a different method that eliminates one of the options.

It seems to me that the whole idea of playing a forcing pass is that by eliminating one of the options you can use all three bids to choose between the two remaining options. When you are in a GF auction this seems better. (I'd like to say more efficient, but I am not sure what the word efficient means in this context)

This has got to depend on how often GF means you have the values and are going to make game.

Since we push to game when it is around 50% and worse vulnerable then there is a significant chance that we have nothing to protect so limiting the choice between offering them a doubled game and going off in our own contract doesn't seem very attractive to me.

[han]

You have made that part of your argument clear.

[benlessard]

What if forgotten in the FP discussion is the maths behind FP.


double swing game = 14/15 imps

small penalty instead of bidding game=7 to 11

down cheap over a game= 7 to 11

going down instead of getting a small plus= 4 to 6

forcing passes = priceless.


If we compared this to the disadvantage of FP.

Doubling and make vs undoubled contract = 4 to 6

a forced sacrifice (cannot stand the double since you are sure they make it) that is too expensive = 3 to 5.


Even when the strenght are evenly divided is seems better to play FP (maybe not 4 over 4) , so when you have an strenght edge its just a great tool that has more advantage than inconvienents.

[benlessard]

Quote

Double is a good call. After a diamond lead, we lose completely our comunication. Just one heart less and one diamond more (or ♥Q missing) and 5♠ is down, even with 7 semisolid spades in partner's hand.

Sorry but double is gross 2 aces + stiff clubs and the K of H (and the K of clubs) partner didnt preempt 3S or 4S so what hand do you think hes got ? Sometimes you are not preempting because you have 3H and so-so spades but here its not possible since he bid 4S and not 4H.


Bidding 4S is normal and passing the double too.
The blame is 100% on the doubler here, not close at all.