[Zelandakh]

I think this is simply an agreement issue. Quite a few players round here have the agreement that the cue raise sets up forcing passes. I know others that think this agreement is kamikaze and loses imps/MP on average. If forcing passes are not on then it is normal to play a pass as a minimum hand with a low ODR. This seems to be the most logical method which allows partner to make a reasonable judgement about whether to pass, double or compete further. I do not have a strong opinion between whether forcing passes should be on or not (a small preference for off, at least at IMPS) but it does affect which hands can cue bid and which have to use a different route.

[mikeh]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-10, 05:49, said:

Standard expert methods are 3♥ is weakest option and pass more encouraging. Some play something different (and/or fancy) but that goes for just about any bidding sequence, I guess.

This.

And I agree with the earlier point about pass being forcing. Basic fp theory is that when our own auction has created a force to a certain level, all passes below that level are forcing. This is a universal rule as far as I am aware

[OleBerg]

Since you asked for a rule of thumb, I'll definitely go with the forcing pass, for reasons weel-explained by others.

It is only if you have the energy for very specific agreements, I can see an idée in a non-forcing pass.

Lets use the sequence you desribe:

If 2♠ shows exactly three-card-support, and the opponents are bidding naturally (i.e. 3♣ does not promise or indicate spade-support), then there could be a point in being able to sell out. Our combined hands could have detoriated so much during the bidding, that it makes sense. Especially if we are vulnerable.

You would still be able to show the bad hand that suggests defending (pass), a bad that wants to compete (3♥), a penalty (X) and a game-try (3♦).

But had they bid diamonds, or if partner can have four, or if 3♣ shows spade support, or if we are white vs red, I'd much prefer the forcing pass.