[mgoetze]

IMPs

---

---

1. Would/should pass be forcing?
2. Would/should pass be forcing at a different vulnerability?
3. What do you bid?

[nigel_k]

Both forcing. I prefer not to change it according to vulnerability. Probably it is optimal to do that but my life is complicated enough already. I would pass on both.

[gnasher]

Both forcing, because they waited for us to bid game then saved.

[quiddity]

The first auction is a bit weird. What is West's expected shape?

[inquiry]

There are conflicting concepts on the first hand. The conflict is that after we open or overcall at the one or two level (no jump) natural raises of a suit to any level never establishes a forcing pass, and non-vul opponents bid over our vul game bid game does establish a forcing pass.

In hand one, over 2♠, opener had to at least realize that a 5♥ was possible before he bid 4♠. He could have bid in any number of ways to establish a forcing pass situation (cue-bid, bid forcing new suit, etc). So in number one, I will go against the theme of the others above and say this is not a forcing pass situation. Note, forcing pass situations are established by partnership agreement, so if you partnership doesn't have the first rule I stated, or if your partner would never think about the possbiiiity of a 5♥ bid over 4♠ and the need to establish a forcing pass situation then of course. it would become a forcing pass situation.

You might think the same plus and minus factors apply to the 2nd auction. However, due to the cramped bidding space AND that our overcall was at the three level, there are not enough ways to show a heart raise (from 3 to 4) so that the rule against direct natural raise never establishing forcing pass is not in effect. Therefore, the they (not vul) bid over our vulnerable game does establish a forcing pass situation.

So on hand one, I would pass (not forcing)... there is no reason to give them +650 just because they bid badly, and on board 2 a pass would be forcing. Not absolultely sure if I would pass or double, it depends upon the minimum stregth of 2♠. My feeling is this hand is a toss up, so the forcing pass seems right.

[WesleyC]

Both Forcing.

First hand is an easy double - you certainly don't want partner to compete to the 5 level.

Second hand I would've preferred to show a strong 4H raise with 3S on the previous round.
Either way i'm doubling now. With a doubleton club I want to discourage a 5 over 5.

WesleyC

[akhare]

I would consider both auctions as FP situations.

#1: It's odd that North chose to pass the X of 2♥ instead of cramping the auction with 3♥. Anyway, we can't analyze the opps' methods and since we don't want to pard to bid 5 over 5, it's X.

#2: Seems that North was hedging presumably with some ♥ length and ♠ shortness or something along those lines. So, X and hope that pard gets off to a trump lead.

What did they hold and what was the outcome?

[Yu18772]

Both forcing because we are vul and reached game voluntarily - we think we make it, and they are sacrificing. I play that pass is forcing at unfavorable or equal vulnerability. If they are vul and we are not pass wouldn't be forcing. Thus pass would offer partner a choice and show a better than balanced minimum - so first hand is a clear double for me (I have a dead minimum hand), second hand is not obvious, but I think that I would also double - too many quick losers for 5 level game.
Yu

[mgoetze]

akhare, on 2012-March-08, 22:11, said:

#2: Seems that North was hedging presumably with some ♥ length and ♠ shortness or something along those lines. So, X and hope that pard gets off to a trump lead.

Actually I suspect a direct 4♣ by North could have been pass/correct.

I don't remember the exact holdings, sorry. I passed in both cases. On #1 partner doubled, getting us to the par contract. On #2 partner bid 5♥, which went one off, losing 14 IMPs to 800 our way at the other table.

[han]

Both forcing.

West's auction on the first shouldn't exist.

[Lurpoa]

inquiry, on 2012-March-08, 18:46, said:

There are conflicting concepts on the first hand. The conflict is that after we open or overcall at the one or two level (no jump) natural raises of a suit to any level never establishes a forcing pass, and non-vul opponents bid over our vul game bid game does establish a forcing pass.

In hand one, over 2♠, opener had to at least realize that a 5♥ was possible before he bid 4♠. He could have bid in any number of ways to establish a forcing pass situation (cue-bid, bid forcing new suit, etc). So in number one, I will go against the theme of the others above and say this is not a forcing pass situation. Note, forcing pass situations are established by partnership agreement, so if you partnership doesn't have the first rule I stated, or if your partner would never think about the possbiiiity of a 5♥ bid over 4♠ and the need to establish a forcing pass situation then of course. it would become a forcing pass situation.

You might think the same plus and minus factors apply to the 2nd auction. However, due to the cramped bidding space AND that our overcall was at the three level, there are not enough ways to show a heart raise (from 3 to 4) so that the rule against direct natural raise never establishing forcing pass is not in effect. Therefore, the they (not vul) bid over our vulnerable game does establish a forcing pass situation.

So on hand one, I would pass (not forcing)... there is no reason to give them +650 just because they bid badly, and on board 2 a pass would be forcing. Not absolultely sure if I would pass or double, it depends upon the minimum stregth of 2♠. My feeling is this hand is a toss up, so the forcing pass seems right.

Very Nice.....
and indeed, too many bid 4♠ with too good a hands......

[dake50]

Yes, FP.
But 1st doubles to warn "just as I previously said, no extra".
2nd doubles to warn "two losers in their suit, I see no slam".
Both with/without a FP agreed.

[lalldonn]

han, on 2012-March-09, 09:38, said:

West's auction on the first shouldn't exist.

I believe it should show a game forcing hand with 3 spades and 7 diamonds that doesn't want to try for 3NT. QJx - KQJTxxx AKx? But I wouldn't expect most partners to be on that page necessarily.

I should say I expect the difference between that and 4D is better spades like AKx, but I used that example hand so it could exist opposite our actual hand.

[lalldonn]

gnasher, on 2012-March-08, 17:10, said:

Both forcing, because they waited for us to bid game then saved.

This point was made to you recently on another auction, but I don't believe that rule should apply to the first auction here. The 1H bidder had a "free" pass over the double to be tricky and make the auction sound any way he wanted to. Your rule should only apply if each player risked the auction being passed out.

[FrancesHinden]

lalldonn, on 2012-March-10, 12:59, said:

I believe it should show a game forcing hand with 3 spades and 7 diamonds that doesn't want to try for 3NT. QJx - KQJTxxx AKx? But I wouldn't expect most partners to be on that page necessarily.

I should say I expect the difference between that and 4D is better spades like AKx, but I used that example hand so it could exist opposite our actual hand.

I made a support double then jumped to 3NT on a not entirely dissimilar auction once (1D P 1H 1S; dbl 2S P P 3NT) which partner correctly interpreted as a 3-7 with one spade stop - I had, I think, A Kxx xx AKQxxxx and started with a double in case we had a heart slam on. So I sort of agree with you, except that I think partner might originally have been interested in 3NT until he jumped to 4S.