[mikestar]

Let me be clear about my take on this--no other situation cited here is comparable to the intentional passing of a GF opening by a non-beginnner, not even passing a Precision 1♣, which is a horrible mastermind but has a decent chance of being right and probably won't miss a game.

The argument that passing 2♣ is comparable to not returning partner's suit is patent nonsense. It it pefectly possible given the sight of the dummy and one's own hand to rationally determine that not returning partner's suit is the best course, indeed in some cases one can discern that returning partner's suit is fatal. Of course one might misanalyse but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the situation.

1♠-1NT-3♦-P is also not comparable even though it is a GF auction--it is GF predicated on the 1NT bidder having a modicum of values, opener can't have game in hand or he would have opened 2♣. So if my partner elected to follow this sequence with void xxxx xxxx xxxxx I would expect him to pass 3♦--if I were to critisize anything it would be the 1NT response.

2♣ GF has a near game lower limit and no upper limit whatever and no information about shape. Maybe someone will run a simulation that shows passing with xx xx xx xxxxxxx is a winning action--but it will never win by enough to pay for the damage to partnership harmony.

In the bridge criminal code, passing 2♣ is high treason. Death by slow torture follwed by eternal damnation.


This discussion excludes the case where you are reasonably certain the 2♣ opener is an idiot and you weren't wanting to play with him again anyway.

It also excludes cases where partner is trying 2/1 after playing only Precision for 20 years and the opponent's mannerisms indicate they have cards-- that is any case where you can rationally determine via authorised information that partner's 2♣ is likely to be a gross error (not an overbid).

It further exlcludes Ben's example where one must get a cold top on the last board to have a chance--in this context, it is no different from any other extreme shot.

In general, I'll accept any rational argument--but asserting that passing 2♣ is likely to be a winner in the particular case without trying to analyze the horrific tradeoffs in partnership confidence is blatantly irrational.

[EricK]

But what I don't see is why partnership confidence should be affected more by this than by any other mistake.

The specific instance I quoted of a non-beginner not returning partner's suit when it is an obvious singleton (rather than the general case of just not returning partner's suit) is a far more serious offence than passing a GF 2♣ opening. I would expect that such a player would never be any use in defense.

Why should our confidence in partner be less affected by such lapses?

Eric

[Winstonm]

Quote

But what I don't see is why partnership confidence should be affected more by this than by any other mistake.

Because, unless distracted or some other unknown reason, passing is not a mistake - it is unbridled arrogance magnified by unforgiveable insult squared.

UAxUI2=U I no play A no more.

WinstonM

[luke warm]

yes, winstonm said it best - passing 2♣ is not a "mistake"... it's a statement that regardless of your agreements, you know best on this hand... while i didn't go so far as to say that i'd never again play with a person who did this, i have to say that my confidence in partner has been severely damaged... only time will tell to what extent

mikestar's post, imo, is exactly right... failing to return partner's suit is not even close to the same thing... i'm about the most forgiving person i know when it comes to mistakes made by a partner, mainly because i know that if he waits long enough he'll see a few of mine... but this is not a mistake, this is usurping captainship in an auction where such a thing ought not even be entertained

[Chamaco]

EricK, on Jun 18 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

But what I don't see is why partnership confidence should be affected more by this than by any other mistake.

An UNWILLING mistake may happen to anyone, even world class.
Everybody can get tired, and it is good partnership to account for some slips by pard, no matter how bad.

A WILLING ignoring of a partnership agreement is much more than that.

(Sorry Wayne, I do not mean to blame you, it is just the issue of such kind of bids, I know you, hope you do not get me wrong... )

This is SUBSTANTIALLY different and is often a sign of turning a partnership game into a solo game, a choice made by anyone who decides to pass a forcing bid by looking only at his cards....

[luis]

Chamaco, on Jun 18 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

EricK, on Jun 18 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

But what I don't see is why partnership confidence should be affected more by this than by any other mistake.

An UNWILLING mistake may happen to anyone, even world class.
Everybody can get tired, and it is good partnership to account for some slips by pard, no matter how bad.

A WILLING ignoring of a partnership agreement is much more than that.

(Sorry Wayne, I do not mean to blame you, it is just the issue of such kind of bids, I know you, hope you do not get me wrong... )

This is SUBSTANTIALLY different and is often a sign of turning a partnership game into a solo game, a choice made by anyone who decides to pass a forcing bid by looking only at his cards....

Disagree,

An unwilling mistake is a distraction, something that shouldn't happen in a good level partnership, distractions can cost many imps and are product of a loss of concentration, a good player must try to focus and keep concentration, unwilling mistakes are a disaster.

On the other hand willing mistakes are things you do with the intention of winning and may or may not result but show you are focused, concetrated and trying to win.

[luke warm]

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

On the other hand willing mistakes are things you do with the intention of winning and may or may not result but show you are focused, concetrated and trying to win.

luis, this may be true but does partner stop opening his (supposedly) forcing 2♣ with a balanced 25 count because his partner, being focused, concentrated, and trying to win, decides to pass?

one would expect the 2♣ bidder to be trying to win also, and focused and concentrated enough to at least open 2♣

[HeartA]

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

An unwilling mistake is a distraction, something that shouldn't happen in a good level partnership, distractions can cost many imps and are product of a loss of concentration, a good player must try to focus and keep concentration, unwilling mistakes are a disaster.

On the other hand willing mistakes are things you do with the intention of winning and may or may not result but show you are focused, concetrated and trying to win.

I totally DISagree, luis. disaster is one thing, ignoring partner is another. I believe (almost) all top players have some kinds of unwilling mistakes. By passing a forcing bid he means, "partner, I have better judgement than you do. Even this is 100% forcing, but I don't believe you".

Bridge is not all about winning, it's more about partnership.

[luis]

luke warm, on Jun 18 2005, 04:49 PM, said:

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

On the other hand willing mistakes are things you do with the intention of winning and may or may not result but show you are focused, concetrated and trying to win.

luis, this may be true but does partner stop opening his (supposedly) forcing 2♣ with a balanced 25 count because his partner, being focused, concentrated, and trying to win, decides to pass?

one would expect the 2♣ bidder to be trying to win also, and focused and concentrated enough to at least open 2♣

Pd passed your forcing 2♣ bid, do you expect him to that again? Once he did it's done, next hand.
You should keep playing normal, when pd does something unexpected and very strange trying to get a result you shouldn't be worried.

[luis]

HeartA, on Jun 18 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

An unwilling mistake is a distraction, something that shouldn't happen in a good level partnership, distractions can cost many imps and are product of a loss of concentration, a good player must try to focus and keep concentration, unwilling mistakes are a disaster.

On the other hand willing mistakes are things you do with the intention of winning and may or may not result but show you are focused, concetrated and trying to win.

I totally DISagree, luis. disaster is one thing, ignoring partner is another. I believe (almost) all top players have some kinds of unwilling mistakes. By passing a forcing bid he means, "partner, I have better judgement than you do. Even this is 100% forcing, but I don't believe you".

Bridge is not all about winning, it's more about partnership.

No, passing a forcing bid is really a partnership bid, it's saying "I know this is wrong but I believe I must pass and I know you will forgive me".
There's a very good quote to explain this action:
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right"

[Chamaco]

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

No, passing a forcing bid is really a partnership bid, it's saying "I know this is wrong but I believe I must pass and I know you will forgive me".

Sorry, I disagree Luis: I prefer a pard that will respect my forcing bids even when passing would be the winning choice once in a while.
We may lose a few boards but we will preserve total pshp trust, which, in my hierarchy, is much higher than a handful of MP or IMPS.


Just my 2 cents

Quote

There's a very good quote to explain this action:
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right"

Of course, this too is not gospel, and is subject to several interpretations according to the situations.
In general, this quote means all and nothing at the same time, so it does not appear particularly illuminating to me, but I do not mean to go off topic...

[HeartA]

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 12:58 PM, said:

No, passing a forcing bid is really a partnership bid, it's saying "I know this is wrong but I believe I must pass and I know you will forgive me".
There's a very good quote to explain this action:
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right"

This is nonsense (sorry for the wording).

[Blofeld]

Destroying partnership trust?

Perish the thought!

Not trusting your partner is insane. And if your partner once passed a forcing bid, that does not mean that he or she distrusted your force, nor that you should in future not trust your partner to bid when forced. I firmly believe that trusting partner - even if partner is eminently untrustworthy - should be just about axiomatic.

I'm a little tired now so if the above reads as verbal nonsense, please ignore.

[MickyB]

Needless to say, I agree totally with Luis.

All this stuff about partnership trust is rubbish IMO. I'm not exactly world class but from what I've heard having an even temperament and concentrating on the matter at hand is vital at that level, if partner is forever judging your actions at the table then he can't be totally focused on his own game, and if you are aware that he is judging you it will affect your play - probably trying to appease pard by trying to take the action that he would, leading his suit when another lead might be better, etc.

Good thread, Sceptic

[Chamaco]

Blofeld, on Jun 18 2005, 08:00 PM, said:

Destroying partnership trust?

Perish the thought!

Not trusting your partner is insane. And if your partner once passed a forcing bid, that does not mean that he or she distrusted your force, nor that you should in future not trust your partner to bid when forced.

I am sorry but I still don't get it:
is 2C an opening bid that forces responder to bid something even with a yarborough ?
If so, pard is expected to bid and not pass, even if he holds 7 clubs to the 9, and a yarborough, for a very simple reason : he IGNORES everything of opener's hand.

Failure to bid as responder opposite 2C opener means that he is playing only with his cards, perhaps hoping for the best results, admittedly, but still, he is playing only with his cards, and pard cannot cooperate in the decision despite having opened 2C.

Opener is excluded from any choice, despite the fact he chose a forcing bid.

I cannot think of many other really worse actions in terms of partnership harmony

[Double !]

you pays your money and you takes your chances.

bottom line IMO: When partner says BID, then BID!

[luke warm]

luis, on Jun 18 2005, 12:58 PM, said:

No, passing a forcing bid is really a partnership bid, it's saying "I know this is wrong but I believe I must pass and I know you will forgive me".
There's a very good quote to explain this action:
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right"

this isn't about forgiveness, it's about one partner deciding unilaterally to wrest captainship from the partner who should hold it... if passing a (game) forcing 2♣ bid isn't masterminding the hand, i don't know what is...

not to get too philosophical about it, but the quote on morals assumes that one person's sense of what's right is somehow more objective than another's sense of morality...

blofeld said:

I firmly believe that trusting partner - even if partner is eminently untrustworthy - should be just about axiomatic.

i'm too simple to understand this, i guess... if it's an axiom to trust one who is eminently untrustworthy, it's axiomatic to attribute truth to a liar

mickyb said:

I'm not exactly world class but from what I've heard having an even temperament and concentrating on the matter at hand is vital at that level, if partner is forever judging your actions at the table then he can't be totally focused on his own game, and if you are aware that he is judging you it will affect your play - probably trying to appease pard by trying to take the action that he would, leading his suit when another lead might be better, etc.

there are so few world class players who use 2♣ as a game force that it's hard to draw analogies with established pairs... but for those who do use the bid in that way, i'd be willing to bet they can't recall their partner (of many many years) having passed such a game force

we aren't talking about a partner 'judging your actions' re: leads, switches, dummy play, resulting the hand, etc... errors of this kind happen to everyone, at every level... passing a game forcing bid seems the very definition of masterminding

[MickyB]

If it could be proven that there are hands for which it is "right" to pass a GF 2♣, ie your expected IMPs/MPs score on this one hand is maximised by you choosing to pass, would you still believe it is wrong to do so should this hand be dealt at the table?

Yes it would be nice to describe your hand and leave pard in a position to choose to play 3♣, but that isn't possible. You have to decide now.

[luke warm]

MickyB, on Jun 18 2005, 03:54 PM, said:

If it could be proven that there are hands for which it is "right" to pass a GF 2♣, ie your expected IMPs/MPs score on this one hand is maximised by you choosing to pass, would you still believe it is wrong to do so should this hand be dealt at the table?

it's impossible to do so... give responder anything you like... make that hand your poster hand for passing 2C.. now give the 2C opener his bid, 22+ hcp or 9 tricks in hand.. to assume it's right to pass with the "poster" hand, with no idea what partner holds, can't be right

for every hand you construct that can possibly pass 2C for whatever reason, i can show you a very reasonable hand for partner that makes game, and maybe slam, laydown

[MickyB]

Yes, I know it is (currently) impossible for such a proof to exist. Just imagine that there is one Imagine that computer analysis shows that you will gain an average of one IMP by passing here over someone who makes a negative response. Yes it is a complete gamble, but so is choosing not to pass!