[jillybean]

Remind me, when do you play FP off/on?

[DavidKok]

Forcing Pass depends a lot on the auction, not just the vulnerability. Are you looking for general rules when to play it? Each partnership tends to make their own, and mine are (far too) complicated.

[jillybean]

I'm looking for general rules, I think it should be on except off NV vs. V ?

The auction, all Vulnerable

1♥ (P) 2NT* (3♠)
4♥ (4♠) FP?

[mikeh]

Here’s a very useful and fairly simple plus reliable set of rules

For a FP to exist, obviously we’ve been in the auction and, almost as obviously, our side has announced some significant values

Always ask: how far have we forced ourselves?

For example, 1H (1S) 2S…..assume, as is common. It not universal, that 2S showed an invitational or better heart raise

How how have we forced ourselves?

Were opener to bid 3H, and responder had only a limit raise, clearly we are not forced…we have decided not to bid game.

Thus if the bidding goes 1H (1S) 2S (3S)……thus can’t be a FP because they’ve bid beyond the level to which we forced. Opener passes with hands on which he’d have rejected a limit raise and bids with extras.

Basic rule: if we have not established a game force, but have shown invitational or better values, we are not in a FP if the opps bid beyond our level of force…if we’re bidding a major, then we’re not forced if they bid higher than 3 of our major.

Second rule: if we’ve established a game force…which a limit or better raise does NOT do….then ALL passes are forcing no matter the level

Bear in mind that bidding game doesn’t always show values. 1S (2H) 4S (5H)

4S did, sort of, force to game. But it carried no implication of strength. Indeed, the 4S bidder often expects to fail much of the time. So for a game force to create a FP situation, it must clearly (as in partner must be able to rely upon this) be a bid based on an expectation of making…on power.



Be aware that in some auctions it’s not clear who was bidding to make. In those auctions, my advice is not to play FP.

Iow, FP arises when they are below our level of force, voluntarily set, or at any time when we’ve announced a power-based game force.

No rules are perfect.

Many years ago we had an auction in which, with a combined 25 hcp and a good heart fit, we bid 5H over 4S, and they bid 5S.

Neither of us had what we needed to think that 6H was making, and indeed it would have been one down. So we doubled, simply to honour the force. Unfortunately the hand was a bit of a freak and 5S was cold

Making matters worse, our expert teammates never bid🙁 they sold out to 4H.

Oh well.

One of the most challenging parts of bidding is to recognize that nothing is perfect, and to resist the temptation to change methods every time one gets a bad result. This problem is compounded by the difficulty of recognizing that maybe our methods are flawed….as opposed to the bad outcome being a price one should be willing to pay in order to maximize the more frequent gains from our chosen methods.

Vulnerability? Some people think vulnerability should play a role. I disagree. While the holdings of the opps, for any given auction, may vary according to vulnerability, that makes no difference to the trick making potential of our hands….and FP is all about our hands, not theirs

[jillybean]

---

I ASSumed my pass was forcing. I'm unsure of making a X with ♠Kx, unsure of bidding on with ♠ Kx

[helene_t]

If we have forced to game on strength, we can't defend undoubled. Jacoby 2NT is obviously FG on strength, a splinter probably also, a fit-showing jump probably not even if it takes us to the game level.

An unassuming cuebid that forces us to game counts as forcing to game on strength.

Bidding game under pressure generally doesn't count, but some pairs have the agreement that certain game bids under pressure count at r/w vulnerability.

Most pairs also agree that if a bid is forcing to a certain level, we can't defend undoubled below that level. For example, after an inverted minor raise all passes are forcing until 3m.

Some pairs also agree that if opps bid game after they have denied game values (for example if a 3rd seat preempt is raised to game) we don't defend undoubled.

Many pairs also play certain passes as forcing after we double their 1NT or when we make a business redouble, but I don't personally like that.

[AL78]

1♣ - (3♥) - 3♠ - (4♥)
P?

In the context of a 5CM, strong NT system.

[Tramticket]

helene_t, on 2023-February-09, 16:10, said:

Many pairs also play certain passes as forcing after we double their 1NT or when we make a business redouble, but I don't personally like that.

Why don't you like that?

If the auction starts (1NT)(12-14)- Dbl-(2D) there are two reasonable approaches. You might play a penalty double here in which case, you surely need to pass to give partner the opportunity to double. But you might not risk doing that if you might be defending 3D undoubted.

You may play the double as takeout in this situation - this is becoming an increasingly common method. Now you might pass with length in their suit, hoping to pass partner's protective double. That still doesn't mean that you want to defend 2D undoubted.

[helene_t]

AL78, on 2023-February-09, 16:49, said:

1♣ - (3♥) - 3♠ - (4♥)
P?

In the context of a 5CM, strong NT system.

Good question. 3♠ forces to game by power but on the other hand it is also bid under pressure so could be a bit weaker than a hand that wanted to GF voluntarily.

I vote for forcing but it is maybe one of those auctions that should be forcing only at r/w vulnerability.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2023-February-09, 12:41, said:

No rules are perfect.

I play almost the opposite of your entire post, but I 100% agree with this part.

[DavidKok]

Generally Forcing Pass is good when as a partnership you have agreed that letting the opponents play undoubled is not an option. Regardless of whatever you think it should mean, pass is logically forcing in this situation. Conversely, if you agree that Forcing Pass is in effect on a certain auction (regardless of your motivations) it becomes impossible to let the opponents play undoubled. Identifying the situations where forcing pass applies is the same as identifying the cases where you might want to let the opponents play something undoubled, and then taking the complement of that.

As far as I know there are two different situations where forcing pass is in effect, and they have different meanings. Both have been pointed out by mikeh and others in this thread, but I'll repeat them anyway.

• If we have set up a force to a certain level (for whatever reason) and the opponents interfere below that level. The argument here is straightforward: a second ago we were happy to bid to level X, and it is unlikely that the opponents interfering is sufficient to convince us that X is actually a big mistake. Instead we use the limited bidding space we have to best coordinate punishing the opponents, or bidding on as normal if that is not relevant.
  • The easiest example (in my opinion) is actually a 2/1 GF auction - 1♠-(P)-2♦-(2♥). 2♦ commits us to at least 3NT, in the context of which it is extremely unlikely that 2♥ undoubled by the opponents is our best option. You might not have agreements about this auction, but if opener passes that is forcing!
    
  • A very common situation is some artificial raise in competition. Mikeh's example (slightly modified) is perfect: 1♥-(1♠)-2♠*-(3♣); ?. 2♠* as an invitational+ raise to 3♥ commits us to that same level, and passing 3♣ undoubled is too narrow a target when we were prepared to commit to 9 tricks in hearts in the absence of that information. Again you might not have agreements about what pass shows, but it is forcing.
  The most common agreement for this pass to either show a minimum in context, or to show nondescript extras (these are two different agreements) while bidding to the level of our force shows the minimum.
• The second common case is one where we think our partnership has too much defensive potential, usually just HCP. It is a bit funny that, say, 1♥-(1♠)-2♠*-(3♣) sets up a forcing pass, while 1♥-(1♠)-2♠*-(4♣) does not. At least in theory it is less often right to let the opps play for 10 tricks in clubs than to let them play for 9? This is different from the above examples in that the forcing pass takes on less of an either/or option. The first case can loosely be interpreted as 'do we pick this up (for free) or do we resume as normal?'. The second case is the one that people are more familiar with, interested in and produces bigger swings and more confusion. The idea is that if we have shown sufficient defensive values on our auction it is simply very improbable that selling out to an undoubled contract is best, and we are willing to sacrifice the remaining few percent where we misjudged the situation to have a more collaborative auction in the majority of cases.

I think the first case is easy to understand and doesn't lead to a lot of confusion - you might not even know that you were playing it! The second case immediately raises some questions. What are 'sufficiently many' defensive values? How improbable is 'very improbable'? Each partnership tends to make their own rules about this. Keep in mind that the main question is "How often is it correct to pass out the opponents in these situations, and how much do we gain by instead having a forcing pass available?" Here are my rules as an example:

• If we have shown a strong GF raise (e.g. 1♥-(2♠)-3♠*-(?)) FP is on. This does not apply if we bid game on shape or under pressure, e.g. 1♠-(4♥)-4♠ or 1♠-(2♥)-4♠.
  
• When we are red on white an invitational raise is sufficient instead (opponents jump like crazy at these colours while are raises are a bit less frivolous, so passing them out is wrong more often).
  
• If we have made a fitbid or one of the two hands is tightly defined FP is off, regardless of other rules (e.g. even red on white P-(P)-1♠-(2♥); 3♥*-(4♥) we are not in a force despite the invitational raise - keep in mind that 2♠ through 3♠ would have shown other types of raises, so 3♥ shows a clear hand type). There is not much benefit to attempting to enlist partner's help when we already have a clear view of their hand. Opposite a fitbid in particular we should just pull the trigger, keeping in mind that fitbids can be based on distributional values.

This last rule is tricky because you now have to define when a hand is 'sufficiently tightly defined'. I include fitbids and situations where a hand is limited to approx 3 HCP as well as in shape (e.g. a notrump opening/rebid - so after 1NT (10-12)-(P)-2♦* (art GF)-(4♠) we do not have a FP, although this is a situation where one might be useful).

[mikeh]

Funny. First you disagree with everything I write about FP agreements, then you write a long post in which your 1st major part is essentially exactly what I described😀

As for your second part, I come at the topic from a different perspective.

I don’t like having ‘rules’ that depend on how many hcp we have AND whether we have ‘sufficiently defined’ our hands. In competitive auctions, especially when the opps have bounced high right away, I defy anyone to have clear rules for how ‘defined’ our bids have been.

You gave the example of 1H (1S) (2S) 4C

Firstly, I don’t think I’ve seen an expert pair bid this way where 4C was a string of clubs, intending to play clubs, for a very long time. Maybe nullve will point me to CC’s where experts bid this way, but all I know use 4C as a way of supporting spades…usually showing a black two suiter with values.

Now, whether we want to double their destined 4S contract (and probably lead trump) depends on our club holding as much as our spade holding. If we have the reds and they the blacks, maybe we need to save! And I do not understand how responder has sufficiently defined his values so that opener can make a FP over 4C….it’s irrelevant anyway…the decision is going to be over 4S.

This is a hand where opener can double to show clubs well controlled, which will help partner, or bid 4D to establish a FP over 4S or 5C or pass to remove the force altogether.

I no longer play 10-12 but I do play 11-13 with the 2D response being an artificial game force…I can’t imagine letting them play 4S undoubled. Yes, one can generate hands where that is the optimal spot, but life’s too short to come up with exceptions to the basic rule…once we’ve announced a gf hand, they can’t play anything undoubled.

Now, if I were playing pro and frequently, then maybe I’d try to establish more complex rules. But I play a handful of events each year…with my main partner…and we have too much to remember already😀

Plus this forum isn’t aimed at players in an expert partnership playing many hands a year. Simple rules may not be optimal, in theory, but are often )the best we can do’ in real life.

[DavidKok]

The argument for not having a FP when partner's hand is tightly defined isn't that we want to pass them frequently, but that the additional value of letting partner decide is very limited. We do know partner's hand and partner doesn't know ours, so it should be rare that we want to consult partner. The probability that passing the opponents out is low but so is the benefit of having a FP. Forcing Pass can very easily become a blame transfer (actually either way! Both "Yes I know your hand is limited, but I passed so you should have found the winning call" as well as "Well you passed so in context that means that me (over)bidding has to be right, why the hell didn't you double" have come up before).

I specifically do let my FP agreements depend on vulnerability (including the vulnerability of the opps), have a FP on some invitational sequences, do not have a FP on a number of GF sequences and think good agreements for FP depend not just on our hands but also on inferences about opps' hands from the auction. I'm happy to hear we still have similar agreements in a lot of situations though. That's what I meant with my previous remark on 'playing the opposite of your rules'.

mikeh, on 2023-February-09, 21:29, said:

I don’t like having ‘rules’ that depend on how many hcp we have AND whether we have ‘sufficiently defined’ our hands. In competitive auctions, especially when the opps have bounced high right away, I defy anyone to have clear rules for how ‘defined’ our bids have been.

We started with "Any GF (point) raise, but not fitbids" and then added two nuances (invitational point raises on red vs white, not when partner's hand is as narrowly defined as a NT opening bid) that one could easily do without. As you said it's far from perfect but I think it's adequate.

The 1♥-(1♠)-2♠*-(4♣) of course shows a black two-suiter, but that doesn't preclude collaborative/descriptive agreements regarding pass. In fact I think 3♣ would imply spade support for many (it does for me), over which opener's pass would show extras but not shortage in both black suits for me, while a pass over a 4♣ fitbid does not carry that connotation.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2023-February-09, 16:10, said:

If we have forced to game on strength, we can't defend undoubled. Jacoby 2NT is obviously FG on strength, a splinter probably also

I would have thought that a splinter by responder fixing trumps in opener's suit is not even a game force, from a technical point of view (although obviously in an unopposed auction opener with a minimum is bound to bid game): at least as we play it, it limits strength heavily, so clearly not FP territory unless Opener has rebid in a way that indicates slam interest.