[Echognome]

I don't want to include the hands here as any bias.

Just wanted any opinions on whether pass is forcing here for you:

P - (P) - 1♣ - (1♥)
3♣* - (Dbl)** - 3NT - (P)
P - (4♣) - Dbl - (4♥)
?

*Preemptive
** Responsive

No questions were asked about the 4♣ bid.

[P_Marlowe]

No.

Partner knows, what I have, but I have no
clue, what 3nT was based on.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

No way.

[Echognome]

If this is an easy question, then the follow ups are:

What is partner's double?

Or alternatively, what has partner shown?

Did 3♣ tell our hand or can we be consulted later?

[P_Marlowe]

Echognome, on Jun 26 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

If this is an easy question, then the follow ups are:

What is partner's double?

Or alternatively, what has partner shown?

Did 3♣ tell our hand or can we be consulted later?

#1 penalty
#2 he believes, he knows, how to get 9 tricks,
he surely relies on at least 5 club ticks coming
from our club length, he has a heart stopper
#3 you can still bid 5C, if you have really long clubs,
say 6 and point at all

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Echognome]

P_Marlowe, on Jun 26 2007, 12:02 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 26 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

If this is an easy question, then the follow ups are:

What is partner's double?

Or alternatively, what has partner shown?

Did 3♣ tell our hand or can we be consulted later?

#1 penalty
#2 he believes, he knows, how to get 9 tricks,
he surely relies on at least 5 club ticks coming
from our club length, he has a heart stopper
#3 you can still bid 5C, if you have really long clubs,
say 6 and point at all

With kind regards
Marlowe

1. Why would a penalty double make any sense? Clearly no one believes they are about to play in clubs. Using double as "penalty of clubs" seems a completely wasted bid.

2. He's said that with 3NT. My question is what has he shown now by doubling?

3. I have an opinion here, but I want to wait for more responses. Thank you for yours.

[Fluffy]

My general agreements are that double of your own suit asks for not leading it.

however in my opinion that meaning is inconsistent with previous 3NT bid.

I'd go with the second option: 'penalty oriented' wich here means: partner don't bid 5♣ please.

[Fluffy]

At first glance I agreeed with everyone that forcing pass here had no sense.

Thinking more of it, double of 4♣ as pnealty oriented has created a forcing pass situation. you are not allowed to bid 5♣, But you are encouraged to double if you have a defensive value (or a bad hand for 4NT/5♣)

[cherdano]

Fluffy, on Jun 26 2007, 02:29 AM, said:

At first glance I agreeed with everyone that forcing pass here had no sense.

Thinking more of it, double of 4♣ as pnealty oriented has created a forcing pass situation. you are not allowed to bid 5♣, But you are encouraged to double if you have a defensive value (or a bad hand for 4NT/5♣)

Of course double encourages partner to double, and it forbids him to bid 5♣ in front of partner. But why should it create a forcing pass? Why isn't opener allowed to pass it out if he just needed a little help from partner from partner to be confident about beating it?

[helene_t]

Agree with Fluffy. 3n did not set up a force but dbl might. At least it encourages partner to double 4♥ for penalties.

[skjaeran]

Opener's double of 4♣ should be a warning to partner not to bid 5♣, I want to defend.

Responders pass over 4♥ is non-forcing. It just say that he hasn't got anything to contribute on defence - a double would have shown some defence.

Opener should be free to decide to defend undoubled.

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on Jun 26 2007, 08:42 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Jun 26 2007, 02:29 AM, said:

At first glance I agreeed with everyone that forcing pass here had no sense.

Thinking more of it, double of 4♣ as pnealty oriented has created a forcing pass situation. you are not allowed to bid 5♣, But you are encouraged to double if you have a defensive value (or a bad hand for 4NT/5♣)

Of course double encourages partner to double, and it forbids him to bid 5♣ in front of partner. But why should it create a forcing pass? Why isn't opener allowed to pass it out if he just needed a little help from partner from partner to be confident about beating it?

Partner cannot have 15-17 NT (unless Mattt corrects me)

I have though of many possible hands, and they are all very unlikelly except for 3 suiters (asking for colaborational double) or 18-19 Balanced (willing to play 4NT), I think 18-19 Bal is more likelly, but I don't claim it to be the only truth .

[P_Marlowe]

Echognome, on Jun 26 2007, 03:06 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jun 26 2007, 12:02 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 26 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

If this is an easy question, then the follow ups are:

What is partner's double?

Or alternatively, what has partner shown?

Did 3♣ tell our hand or can we be consulted later?

#1 penalty
#2 he believes, he knows, how to get 9 tricks,
he surely relies on at least 5 club ticks coming
from our club length, he has a heart stopper
#3 you can still bid 5C, if you have really long clubs,
say 6 and point at all

With kind regards
Marlowe

1. Why would a penalty double make any sense? Clearly no one believes they are about to play in clubs. Using double as "penalty of clubs" seems a completely wasted bid.

2. He's said that with 3NT. My question is what has he shown now by doubling?

3. I have an opinion here, but I want to wait for more responses. Thank you for yours.

#1 sry, did not look to closely, I usually post from work,
but the answer is still correct, but call it what you like.
X = a strong interest in defending, additional strength,
what ever.
It is certainly possible to attache a meaning like "(forbidding / inviting)
to sacrifice" to pass and double, but the 4C cue is rare,
very rare and unless you can define a general rule to
identifiy those situations, I would not attach a special
meaning to the bid.

#2 The double simply said, he bid 3NT with the intention
to make, it was not a pure gamble, sometimes you bid
3NT with the intention to run, if they double you.

#3 replace " and point at all" with " and no points at all".

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

cherdano, on Jun 26 2007, 03:42 AM, said:

Of course double encourages partner to double, and it forbids him to bid 5♣ in front of partner. But why should it create a forcing pass? Why isn't opener allowed to pass it out if he just needed a little help from partner from partner to be confident about beating it?

Exactly my thoughts.

[Apollo81]

I don't think so.

[Echognome]

It's interesting that only one or two people are willing to go as far as to say pass is forcing.

I personally like playing it that way, but I can understand the arguments otherwise. I think a hand that opens and bids 3NT over a preempt *can* be one of several hand types, but that double over the opponents bid says "this is the hand-type that was based on power." Then partner can cooperate in the play/defend decision, not just in the defend decision. I cannot think of a hand that would let the opponents play undoubled, but I will await examples of such hands by those that feel pass should not be forcing, so I can learn by them.

The hand in question had KJxx KTxx A KQJx.

[FrancesHinden]

This is a strange one for two reasons.

First is that I am usually in the 'pass is not forcing' camp, but at first sight this one does look forcing to me. Not so much from the 3NT bid, but from the combination of 3NT and double of 4C. I think I am invited to bid over 4H, although 4NT and double are more likely than 5C.

However, then I started wondering why partner bid 3NT rather than redouble. If partner just had a strong hand with a load of high cards, surely that's a redouble of the double? OK, that gives LHO a chance to bid a suit, but if we are strong balanced (as it seems the actual hand was) then that isn't a problem, that hand is on lead anyway.

So I think 3NT over the double is likely to be hoping for running clubs and stops, not necessarily 3NT on power. That means we are not in a forcing pass auction over it. The double of 4C then sets up a forcing pass, i think.

The actual hand looks like a redouble: not confident that 3NT is making, may want to defend at the 3-level doubled.

[Echognome]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 26 2007, 08:42 AM, said:

The actual hand looks like a redouble: not confident that 3NT is making, may want to defend at the 3-level doubled.

This is an excellent point I missed.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 26 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

The actual hand looks like a redouble: not confident that 3NT is making, may want to defend at the 3-level doubled.

Agree. 3N would be more like A Axx Axx Axxxxx.

[Fluffy]

I missed the redouble option also, but the hand in question is not too good for defending with KQJx in clubs.