[han]

xx
KJxx
xx
KQxxx

Second seat at IMPs, unfavorable.

p - p - 2D - 4S
5D - ??

Do you think pass here is forcing? What call do you make?

[jillybean]

My guess:
No pass is nf. If pass is nf I'll double for penalty

[dake50]

What over 2D would partner have done to ensure a forcing pass to get my input? I think he chose NOT forcing pass to 4S. I double =max-pass, not good fit.

[Cascade]

han, on Aug 8 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

xx
KJxx
xx
KQxxx

Second seat at IMPs, unfavorable.

p - p - 2D - 4S
5D - ??

Do you think pass here is forcing? What call do you make?

What do you bid with

♠ xx
♥ xxxx
♦ xxx
♣ xxxx

?


Of course pass is not forcing?

[655321]

Well, the first question is easy: nonforcing for me.

The second question is much harder.
Pass, double and 5♠ are all possible.

Double 'transferrable values' would be nice, but my double is just penalties here.
At the table I would probably double. But 5♦ might even make, and probably won't be down many.

Bidding 5♠ doesn't feel right with a doubleton spade, a doubleton in their suit, and no Aces. Yet, if partner has 7 or 8 solid spades and an Ace (not unlikely), 5♠ is probably the winning action.

[jdonn]

Pass is FORCING. A passed hand raising a preempt to game creates a forcing pass on our side, that is very much expert standard. The fact you could have nothing is pretty much irrelevant, then you double them and pay off to the freaks where they are making. Very often you will have support for partner and not want to commit to raising at a high level, and their auction is completely preemptive in nature.

[han]

So what's your call Josh?

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Aug 8 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

Pass is FORCING. A passed hand raising a preempt to game creates a forcing pass on our side, that is very much expert standard. The fact you could have nothing is pretty much irrelevant, then you double them and pay off to the freaks where they are making. Very often you will have support for partner and not want to commit to raising at a high level, and their auction is completely preemptive in nature.

P P 3S 4H
4S P
is forcing?

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Aug 8 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 8 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

Pass is FORCING. A passed hand raising a preempt to game creates a forcing pass on our side, that is very much expert standard. The fact you could have nothing is pretty much irrelevant, then you double them and pay off to the freaks where they are making. Very often you will have support for partner and not want to commit to raising at a high level, and their auction is completely preemptive in nature.

P P 3S 4H
4S P
is forcing?

Yes. I know a few (yes, minority) expert players who would play P P 3♠ P 4♠ as forcing on the other side. I know it sounds insane if you have never heard it before, trust me it makes a lot of sense.

Problem hand I bid 5♠.

[cherdano]

I don't doubt that it makes sense, I just doubt that this is expert standard.

[jdonn]

I would bet Fred takes the problem auction as forcing.

[MFA]

Double.
I play pass as nonforcing here, although, as jdonn says, forcing passes are quite popular in this situation.
So my double is for penalties, but not more so than it's consistent with a responsive double type of hand, which is what I have here. Otherwise these situations become unsolvable.

[OleBerg]

han, on Aug 8 2008, 06:23 AM, said:

Do you think pass here is forcing? What call do you make?

We are deep into partnership agreement territory, as both forcing and non-forcing makes a lot of sense. Personally I play it as non-forcing. (I also believe that among experts, opinions would be divided.)

Quote

What call do you make?

This depends on what 4♠ show. I must admit that this is a sequence where I have absolutely no idée what "expert standard" is. Is 4♠ weaker or stronger than 3♠? Does it show a more one-sided hand?

I play it as weaker, a hand that wants to take a chance on a single-suited hand with a lot of playing strenght, but without a lot of HCP.
With a better hand I would bid a forcing 3♠. I do have a feeling though, that this is not standard.

To the point; with my own agreement, I double, showing that I believe 4♠ was making. If I had a hand that would pass, a double from my partner would have had the same meaning.

[jkdood]

One (popular) way to look at it is that 4S shows a VERY good hand (as of course most know you don't preempt over preempts.)

Once you accept that, how can it be right on most days to let the passed-hand pard of the weak 2-bidder steal the hand in 5D undoubled?

On this hand I choose x since I have more than 1 diamond but think it's very close, as my cards seem to be working for pard and he probably has less than 2d himself.

[gnasher]

I like pass to be forcing when a passed hand raises a preempt to the five level, but not when they raise to the four level. It's not that unlikely that they're making something at the four level, especially if the preempter can have a wide range. Furthermore, when they're at the four level we still have room for cue bids, 4NT, etc. At the five level, it's very unlikely that they're making, and they have taken away the space for almost everything except double, so a forcing pass has more value.

When pass isn't forcing, a double shows offensive values and suggests that we have enough for game.

Partner's 4♠ shows a better hand than 2♠ or 3♠, and says he's fairly sure that we belong in spades. You can't afford to double 2♦ with this hand type, because they may bid 5♦.

I have a pretty good hand here. Partner could have as much as AKQxxxx Ax x Axx, but I suppose he might also have some hand with a doubleton diamond, possibly with a trump loser too, so I don't think I'm quite good enough to pass and pull.

If pass is forcing, I pass. Maybe partner will imaginatively bid 5♥, as a sort of last train; if so, I'll bid 6♠. If partner doubles 5♦, I'll defend. If he bids 5♠ I'll let him play there.

If pass isn't forcing, I double, with the same continuations.

[nige1]

han, on Aug 7 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

Second seat at IMPs, unfavorable ♠ xx ♥ KJxx ♦ xx ♣ KQxxx
(_P) _P  (2♦) 4♠
(5♦)  ??
Do you think pass here is forcing? What call do you make?

• Non-forcing.
  
• _X = 10, 5♠ = 4, _P = 1.

[OleBerg]

jkdood, on Aug 8 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

One (popular) way to look at it is that 4S shows a VERY good hand (as of course most know you don't preempt over preempts.)

I know, I have have often been told so, after one of my overbids.

Nonetheless, say you have:

♠KQJ10xxx
♥x
♦xx
♣AQx

On such a hand I would like to be able to gamble on 4♠, and would be genuinely afraid of 2♠ being passed out, on a lot of hands where 4♠ make. Even when 4♠ doesn't make, the opponents might make a phantom.

Quote

Once you accept that, how can it be right on most days to let the passed-hand pard of the weak 2-bidder steal the hand in 5D undoubled?

Well, this depends on what hands your opponents pass away in first seat, and how creative they can be with their third hand preempts.

I prefer to set up my own forces, when I have room for it, instead of letting my opponents bidding put us in a forcing situation.

In this specific sequence, I wouldn't mind the pass being forcing at all, but it requires a lot of specific agreements, as I wouldn't like it to be forcing, if LHO wasn't a passed hand. And there are sequences where I wouldn't want a pass to be forcing, even after a passed hand raises a preempt.

So Ill agree this far; if my partner was able to remember everything, I wouldn't mind playing this sequence as forcing. I think I would actually prefer it.

[gnasher]

OleBerg, on Aug 8 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

♠KQJ10xxx
♥x
♦xx
♣AQx

On such a hand I would like to be able to gamble on 4♠, and would be genuinely afraid of 2♠ being passed out, on a lot of hands where 4♠ make.

What would 3♠ show?

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Aug 8 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Aug 8 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

♠KQJ10xxx
♥x
♦xx
♣AQx

On such a hand I would like to be able to gamble on 4♠, and would be genuinely afraid of 2♠ being passed out, on a lot of hands where 4♠ make.

What would 3♠ show?

3♠ would be forcing, a much HCP-stronger one-suited hand, that might envision slam facing the right values, and that wanted to set up a force.

Such a hand cannot start with a double in my system, as a T/O double followed by a bid in a suit, shows tolerance for the other suits.

I know this makes more sense when partner is not passed, but we play it as a general agreement.

I am not a stern follower of fast arrival, but I prefer it here.

[helene_t]

I would prefer pass to be forcing here. If so I pass since double would be penalties (I think it was AWM who plays double as t/o in fp situations, wasn't it? Sounds good but I haven't agreed that with any partners).

If pass is nf I double which shows "cards" in that case.