[Quantumcat]

Lott: EW have probably 9 clubs, and we have probably 10 hearts. 19 tricks. If 11 for us, they will get 8 tricks for +500 instead of +650 for bidding, so you want to bid. If 11 for them, -650/-500 for passing/bidding, so want to bid, again. But if neither side can make a 5 level contract, you want to pass for a positive.

Looking at the actual hands, we take 3 tricks in 5C, and 11 tricks in 5H. 21 tricks total! I guess because of the extreme distribution.

[benlessard]

Quote

Looking at the actual hands, we take 3 tricks in 5C, and 11 tricks in 5H. 21 tricks total! I guess because of the extreme distribution

After the 3 level its better to rely on your judgement then to rely on the LOTT whatever your level of play.

[mikeh]

jillybean2, on Jul 19 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

Quote

Im not sure I understand this forcing pass, X not penalty here.
If North had interest in defending would he pass (forcing pass) 5♣ and leave the decision to partner , double (penalty)  or bid?

If partner doubles and it is not for penalty then it is sending a clear message that the hand is ours, convert this to penalty at your own risk?

Some 'penalty doubles' are clear expressions of doubt that the opponents can make their contract. Partner opens 1♠, rho overcalls a natural 1N and you are looking at a balanced 11 count... your double is unambiguously penalty.. in no way does it express any view of what your side can make.. only that you are confident that defending 1N x'd is the best spot.

By contrast, when we are in a competitive auction, and the opps have bid an apparent sacrifice and we are next to bid... when we are in a forcing pass situation, our possible calls are:

1. Bid on.. either a cue or our suit... a clear expression that we think, based on current information, that we are in a position to and do decide that bidding on is better than defending a doubled save

2. Pass: forcing. Standard usage is to play this as saying that we don't know which is best: bidding on or defending, and we are involving partner. Note that an increasing number of expert pairs now invert the meaning of double and pass...such that pass suggests defending, allowing partner, who is expected to double, to bid on with a real offensive surprise and double suggests bidding on but allows partner to pass with a defensive surprise or a really poor offensive hand in context.

3. Double. This is a 'penalty double' but is NOT necessarily and won't usually be based on having a great defensive hand.. it is based on having a poor offensive hand. It is not so much a comment on their contract as it is a comment on the chances of our making our contract if we bid on.

Let's say they bid 5♣ over our 4♥. We might double because they are idiots who are going for a telephone number. Or we might double because we don't want partner to bid 5♥ unless he has a really really strong reason for doing so. The example hand in the OP has two really really strong reasons for doing so It has extra offence, in the form of a 7 card suit when we might bid the same way on a 4 or 5 card suit, and it has negative defence, given that we established a game force power auction (well, power but not overwhelming.. no slam interest) by bidding 4♥.. the correct value bid but a bid that suggests more hcp (hence more defence) than we hold. There is no way for partner to tell these doubles apart (in the bad old days, a loud, fast double would be penalty and a soft or slow double would be 'I don't think we can make').

Since we cannot distinguish these doubles and since experienced opps will more often be saving accurately than stupidly, we need the 'I don't think we can make 5♥' double more than the 'they've made a mistake' double.

Most experienced pairs, when discussing fp sequences, recognize that their methods may (will) sometimes require that they double a making contract. Anytime the opps are apparently saving, and we don't think we can make our contract if we bid on, we are going to double and once in a while the contract we double will be cold.

That's simply a cost of doing business.

The double here is a 'don't bid 5♥ double'. So, it is 'penalty' in the sense that it is intended to be passed (altho that is NOT an absolute command), but it is not 'penalty' in the sense that we expect to beat their contract more than the value of our game.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on Jul 21 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

There is no way for partner to tell these doubles apart (in the bad old days, a loud, fast double would be penalty and a soft or slow double would be 'I don't think we can make').

LOL maybe I could still have my partner kick me.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, here are 2 more hands - I will post the full hands later.

Hand1: North has a forcing pass here?

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ 4 ♥ AKQT632 ♦ QT ♣ K52

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♥
 Pass  2♥    3♣    4♥
 5♣    Pass  Pass  5♥
 Pass  Pass  Dbl   Pass
 Pass  Pass  


Hand2:

Dealer: North Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ A97 ♥ AJ952 ♦ 8 ♣ K854

West North East South

 -     Pass  3♦    Dbl
 5♦    Pass  Pass  Dbl
 Pass  5♠    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

[mikeh]

Whether a particular auction creates a FP is a matter of agrement: Kokish and Kantat, probably the leading theorists of the past 30 years, disagree on some fp auctions.

1. Not commonly a fp. S's 4♥ could be a semi-preemptive move, and thus not announcing ownership of the hand.

2. When the opps are vul and we are not, few would play this sequence (3♦ x 5♦) as a fp. Some players play that this would be fp if NS were red and EW white, but I am not one of them.

So, for me, neither of these are fp situations.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jul 22 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

Whether a particular auction creates a FP is a matter of agrement: Kokish and Kantar, probably the leading theorists of the past 30 years, disagree on some fp auctions.

I usually agree with mikeh (at least in competitive auctions) but here is a very good example: I do not think the original auction posted sets up a forcing pass

1C P 1H 2C
2H 3C 4H 5C
P

because, to me, it is not known who it bidding to make. Also, if I wanted to set up a forcing pass I could have bid 4C over 3C, but I didn't, I simply jumped to 4H.

(For example, give us the same distribution but without the ace of spades - say
Qxxx
Q10xxxx
x
x

and we might well have bid exactly the same way, particularly if not playing any form of pre-emptive heart response to 1C)

FWIW, I wouldn't have pulled the double of 5C either, but that is also a function of the forcing, or otherwise, nature of the pass. In a fp situation, partner's double just expresses the opinion that we are better defending than bidding on if I have a normal hand. In a non-fp situation, partner's double is pretty strictly for penalties and I have no reason to over-rule, as I have nothing unexpected.

These auctions are not easy, and often it is more a matter of partnership entente than anything else. So with your partner's hand, I would not have doubled as I have no particular reason to expect 5C is going off, and with your hand I would have bid 5H for exactly the same reason.

Quote

1. Not commonly a fp. S's 4♥ could be a semi-preemptive move, and thus not announcing ownership of the hand.

2. When the opps are vul and we are not, few would play this sequence (3♦ x 5♦) as a fp. Some players play that this would be fp if NS were red and EW white, but I am not one of them.

So, for me, neither of these are fp situations.

I agree with these.

[FrancesHinden]

jillybean2, on Jul 22 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 21 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

There is no way for partner to tell these doubles apart (in the bad old days, a loud, fast double would be penalty and a soft or slow double would be 'I don't think we can make').

LOL maybe I could still have my partner kick me.
Thanks for the detailed explanation

One way to decide if pass is forcing or not is to have the following agreement:

If I am in a competitive auction, and I had a stronger way to show a raise to game, and I didn't take it, then pass is not forcing.

So:

1H P 2H 3C
4H 5C P

this is not forcing, if I wanted a forcing pass I would have bid 4C over 3C.

1S 2H 2S 3H
4S 5H P

this is not forcing, if I wanted a fp I would have bid 4H over 3H

1H 1S 3H 4S
5H P

again, I could have bid 4H over 3H to set up a fp


But you should not assume such an agreement - other people will tell you that the 'stronger' options I describe to set up a forcing pass are actually slam tries, or that they promise a control in the suit bid, which puts a slightly different interpretation on them.

Also, there are plenty of auctions where you don't have the opportunity to bid game in a 'forcing' manner, and then you are back to first principles (have I bid game on power? Are my opponents clearly saving?)

[mikeh]

Quote

One way to decide if pass is forcing or not is to have the following agreement:

If I am in a competitive auction, and I had a stronger way to show a raise to game, and I didn't take it, then pass is not forcing.

So:

1H P 2H 3C
4H 5C P

this is not forcing, if I wanted a forcing pass I would have bid 4C over 3C.

1S  2H  2S 3H
4S  5H  P

this is not forcing, if I wanted a fp I would have bid 4H over 3H

1H  1S  3H  4S
5H  P

again, I could have bid 4H over 3H to set up a fp


But you should not assume such an agreement - other people will tell you that the 'stronger' options I describe to set up a forcing pass are actually slam tries, or that they promise a control in the suit bid, which puts a slightly different interpretation on them.

Also, there are plenty of auctions where you don't have the opportunity to bid game in a 'forcing' manner, and then you are back to first principles (have I bid game on power?  Are my opponents clearly saving?)

I usually agree with Frances in these areas, but this is an example of an area where I do not (entirely) agree with her.

For example, on the OP hand, the 4♥ bidder was completely unlimited, so I would treat 4♣ over 3♣ as a slam try... S has to have a slam try available BECAUSE he is unlimited... actually, slightly more precisely, he needs a slam try because the partnership assets are unlimited and slam may be available.

Conversely, if the auction proceeded: 1♥ [2♣] 2♥ [3♣], the odds of slam being available are low.. opener is somewhat limited by the 1♥ opener and responder is very much limited by the 2♥ raise, so in this sequence it makes sense (to me, anyway) to use 4♣ as a 'we own this hand' bid, rather than as a slam try.

I had thought of getting into these areas earlier, but decided that this was overkill in terms of the thread to date, but Frances' posts have mde me change my mind.

Another possibility is to use a jump in a new suit (below our game) to show a side suit with values and to announce ownership of the hand and thus create a fp while helping partner evaluate.

Thus in the OP auction, a jump to 4♦ over 3♣ would have announced a double-fit and a power-raise to 4♥ while anticipating that the opps may be bidding 5♣.

I once attended a training weekend with Kokish as the coach hired by the Canadian Bridge Federation to give our team some help... he had at least 100 examples of auctions that we were to discuss in order to refine our fp agreements: he didn't expect us to agree as a team: this was purely for each partnership to think about.... fp sequences are amongst the most interesting and complex areas of bridge theory, and in many cases there is no 'right' answer other than whatever your partnership has decided to play. Having said that, there are undoubtedly good ground rules that most partnerships adopt, which is why Frances and I can disagree on the OP hand (it is definitely a fp by the rules I use in my partnerships, and can equally validly be played as non fp if one's rules are different) and still agree that neither of the more recent auctions are fp.