[MinorKid]

I admit i am quite a fan of ♦'s and this add me a bit of my obsession.

I received a email from 'bid72' yesterday a quite interesting situation shows up. You can see that post below.
The post

---

The post suggested that a pass here is a forcing pass, which i agree, an is a Grand Slam Try. However how does it necessary pin point spade control is the issue ?

Spoiler

---

I have been curious what if had that extra been ace of spade instead of clubs?

Spoiler

---

Would you as west try for 7♦ yourself ? or just settle there and blame partner afterwards not cueing 5♠ ?

Spoiler

---

How to get there without help of opponents ? Do you prefer inv 2♦ or 2/1 2♣ ?

[mycroft]

Spoiler

If you treat this as a forcing pass situation (and I would - who bids 6♦ as a sacrifice over 4? Partner expects there to be a play) then double says no interest in grand, bidding it obviously says "I think we can make it". Pass says "I'm interested in the grand, but I don't know if we can make it." Why would we not be able to make it? Well, lots of reasons, but losing the first trick to the (obvious *) spade lead would be first, and maybe second, on my list. So...

(*) The suggestion to lead trump against a grand is not because pulling trump is going to set the contract; it's because it's the safest, passive lead that you hope will not give up a trick, and you hope declarer doesn't have 13 without help. Here? You're never "setting up" a trick for declarer in spades...

Spoiler

I didn't have a poll answer for the second question. My reaction? "Who knows who can make what? This should at least have a play, and if it doesn't they might misdefend, or take the save." Now I'd be expecting to get a bunch of spade ruffs, at least before LHO takes the sacrifice, but still.

Spoiler

Without the interference? Well, somebody still has spades. If it's not the opponents, it's partner. So, they're likely 4x4x, probably minimum balanced; 4-cards for a minor raise is usually not enough (what if they are 4=4=3=2?). Okay, 2♣ as long as I know it's GF, then my 3♦ will get the point across. And when I pull 3NT, I should have finished describing my hand.

[mikeh]

If east is bidding 6D wtf is wrong with 5S first? Sure, it’s exclusion and we’re off the entire heart suit but it’s not as if 6D caters to having heart losers, lol. Over 5S, west has an easy 7D.

[pescetom]

Spoiler

The elephant in the room is the first trick in their suit, but otherwise not impressed by the bid72 post. I agree with mycroft's analysis of obvious meanings for Pass, Double and Grand.

If we have sufficient memory to conventionalize the situation then maybe (off the top of my head):
X = neither of the following
Pass = have 1st level control in their suit and one other suit
Grand = hope to make.

Spoiler

I can live with East's bid if our methods above 4♠ offer no better. We have an old meta-rule that 4NT here would be RKCB in diamonds, which is perhaps not optimal but would probably help here.

Spoiler

As mycroft pointed out, someone has to have the spades. We would start 2♣ GF in any case.

[mycroft]

Having read the article, it looks like another "BOLS Bridge Tip", and quite a reasonable one.

But the tip is "over a 6-level save, pass asks for first round control [in their suit]."

So it's not really explaining "why it has to be, theoretically", more stating "this is the obvious thing partner would not know when considering bidding 'one more', so agree with partner that this is what [the forcing] pass asks for." May not work all the time, but any agreement is better than no agreement, and this one is probably the best (easy) agreement.

The fact that duffers like me can work the reasoning out from first principles simply shows how obvious it should be. Not "is", absent actual agreement, mind you.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-January-12, 17:45, said:

Having read the article, it looks like another "BOLS Bridge Tip", and quite a reasonable one.

But the tip is "over a 6-level save, pass asks for first round control [in their suit]."

So it's not really explaining "why it has to be, theoretically", more stating "this is the obvious thing partner would not know when considering bidding 'one more', so agree with partner that this is what [the forcing] pass asks for." May not work all the time, but any agreement is better than no agreement, and this one is probably the best (easy) agreement.

The fact that duffers like me can work the reasoning out from first principles simply shows how obvious it should be. Not "is", absent actual agreement, mind you.

According to degree of benevolence and diplomacy one can see the glass as half full or half empty.

I would argue that if a "duffer" like you can work the reasoning out from first principles then this is the "natural" base level agreement one would already assume undiscussed, not some better agreement to learn. The article should have made this clear.
With a regular partner at high level I think we should have a better agreement that takes account of the possibility that I have first round control in their suit but otherwise less than could be expected.

[mycroft]

But the level of "newspaper bridge columns" is "interested kitchen bridge players". The level I'm sure bid72 is aiming at is slightly higher, but it's not theoreticians and it's not experts (which I would assume explains the suggested auction of 6♦ instead of 5♠ - how many people subscribing to a bridge column know Exclusion Blackwood, never mind play it and would understand it as a non-jump?)(*)

I happen to be wired so that things only make sense if I can work out the principle of the thing; that gives me an advantage here in bridge theory. I know that. You're a scientist; I remember those days too.

But the column is aimed at the players who will read this, think "oh that makes sense, I never would have thought of that", and take it to their partner who will be easily convinced by sense and authority, and *now they have an agreement*. Sure, it'll come up once in their lives, but when it does happen, they're ahead of the non-readers.

(and yes, my favourite of the original BOLS Bridge Tips was "Shuffle your cards". Which they were very concerned about publishing, for good reason, but decided to because players like the ones in the story exist.)

(*) Yes, I know, "what else could it be?" But again, not aimed at theoreticians and experts.

[Cyberyeti]

I was always taught that a forcing pass that invited paretner to bid at the 7 level ALWAYS guaranteed a first round control in opps suit.

Is partner not allowed to have

---

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-January-14, 04:50, said:

I was always taught that a forcing pass that invited paretner to bid at the 7 level ALWAYS guaranteed a first round control in opps suit.

Is partner not allowed to have

---

It's certainly more logical to promise control in the opps suit (but with some other concern) rather than to deny it (but with no other concern) or merely show generic doubt. The space for a convention (as I see it) is in how we define that concern when holding control (for example, only two of the excluded keycards, not that this particular choice would help much in your example).

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2025-January-13, 16:21, said:

According to degree of benevolence and diplomacy one can see the glass as half full or half empty.

"Some say the glass is half full. Some say the glass is half empty. I say the glass is too damn big!" -- George Carlin

[mycroft]

The engineer says "not enough beer!"

Learned that very early in my university career.

[mikl_plkcc]

I don't understand why is pass forcing here. What if West genuinely thinks that 6♠ is makeable?

It is also possible, from this bidding, that West holds something like ♠x ♥AQJ ♦K9xxxxx ♣xx.

[mycroft]

Then 7♦ is a good sacrifice.

Oh, you're thinking "what if we both don't have a spade first round control?" I mean, 7♦ is probably still a good sacrifice, but you're going to be playing 6♠x. Worst case, assuming our teammmates also find the 6♠ "sacrifice", and it doesn't get doubled - we're giving up -230 for 6 IMPs. Pretty much any other case is better (or less bad. 6♠x= vs 7♦-1 (or even -3) - 1 imp for the double if 7 isn't doubled, zero or 1 if it is). If we get to 7, and it makes opposite -500 or so, that's +940, for 14.

Yes, sometimes the hands are such that it's going to lose. Bridge is like that, Preempts Work™. But the cost of the loss vs the potential gains is just worth it. And having an agreement, even if it can cost sometimes, will still be worth it over not having one.

[MinorKid]

Thank for the replies so far.

reply to mikl it is better to play it as forcing pass each knowing both hand has points (We are the opening side and partner has jumped)and most likely our side is bidding to make instead of sacrifice out of the blue. As mycroft pointed out it is better to have an mutual agreement.

Given we know we have a FP, what would be the agreement over what the pass refer to? Particularly who should have the spade control? What if it happens to be other way around?


Maybe some examples demonstrating at lower level might help clear some throughts

---

West has an easy 6♦.

---

West can pass and convert the double to 6♦ or pass 6♦

---

Some players might take the strain to launch 6 or 7. But if you pass here holding a void then plan to bid next partner will have a better picture shall similar thing arise next. It is all player's style.

---

Pass here show the void? I dont know.

Maybe decision made on lower levels might help on desicion on higher level, base on the common principles.

[Cyberyeti]

The thing about pass showing the first round control ONLY applies where you're inviting partner to bid at the 7 level

I had a weird version of this, we bid 7♣, opps bid 7♠ and it took me a little while to realise I had to double on my void, as a void is not useful in 7N, partner had the ace and successfully bid it.

[MinorKid]

The forcing pass agreement on slam level is conclude like this fashion.

1D (3S) 4S^ (5S) Pass here shows at least second round control in opponent suit.

1D (3S) 4S^ (6S) Pass here show first round control in opponent suit.

^ Doesn't promise any control