[FrancesHinden]

None of this is going to help anyone, but:

- I tend to be in the 'never pass a forcing bid unless you have psyched' camp. Jallerton thinks similarly
- I need a real powerhouse to open 2C, and I need a real powerhouse to game force after partner has responded 1NT to 1M, or 1M to 1C (which can both be done on very weak hands)
- A regular partner tells me often that he believes in the 'pass a forcing bid if you think it's the right spot' approach.
- So far, he hasn't yet done it. He thought of it once, decided not to, and game made on a misdefence
- I once passed a forcing bid, my partner sympathised, and he made an overtrick in 3S with a misdefence (and a very pretty trump squeeze)

None of this proves anything, but our approach to bidding is definitely in camp 1 of the 3 options.

[JLOGIC]

So in other words if you have abnormally high standards for both jumpshifting and opening 2C, it becomes less likely that passing in a jumpshift auction is correct, especially when your opponents misdefend every hand Good to know!

By the way, if I was playing matchpoints and I passed a forcing bid and game made on a misdefense followed by a trump squeeze, I would still estimate a top! Isn't that a fundamental difference in MP and imps?

[nigel_k]

JLOGIC, on 2011-April-02, 12:45, said:

I was under the impression that reverse and jumpshift auctions were different, and "everyone" would say pass on 1D p 1S p 2H p ? with Jxxxx Qxx x xxxx. I guess this response falls into the category of a psyche, but it is also a normal action for most north american players (I think), depending on vulnerability etc.

Opening 1♠ with a six card spade suit does limit the hand by the failure to open 2♣. But I think opening one of a minor is different because it's less attractive to open 2♣ when your main suit is a minor and because partner is more likely to bid with a sub-minimum response. Opener may be relying on the fact they will do so. So after 1♦-1♠-2♥, responder has to allow for opener being as strong as maybe 23 HCP or possibly not having a real heart suit. I don't mind pass with Justin's example but wouldn't want to be any stronger.

[JLOGIC]

Quote

So after 1♦-1♠-2♥, responder has to allow for opener being as strong as maybe 23 HCP

No he doesn't.

Even if one did accept the premise that it was normal to open 1D with a 23 count and 5D and 4H, how often do you think opener has 23 rather than 17, 18, 19, 20, 21? It is a ridiculously small amount of the time, and bridge is a game of frequencies. "Opener might have 23(!) ergo we cannot pass 1D p 1S p 2H with Jxxxx Qxx x xxxx" does not logically followed. Also, why are you so confident we are going to make game opposite a 1453 23 count with that hand? I would still want to be in 2H.

[cloa513]

Foxx, on 2011-March-31, 16:59, said:

You can never pass a jump-shift auction below game, unless you're at 4 of a minor and the bidding has revealed an unstopped suit to keep you out of 3NT.

Here, partner could have ♠AKxxxx ♥K ♦KQJx ♣Kx, when 4♥ is a heavy favorite. Or ♠KQJ10xx ♥x ♦AKQ10 ♣Kx, when 4♠ is where you want to be.

I really don't know what the hell I would do here. Any of 4♥ or 4♠ or 3NT or 4♦ could be right. I'll admit that even pass could be right. But I could not bring myself to do it.

With the former he should have bid 4H himself- a weak hand's long suit works better when denying other suits.
With the latter, the bidding is correct so bid four spades.

[MickyB]

I agree with the theory of passing "forcing" bids when it looks right. Obviously that requires having a partner who won't be upset by it.

I would never pass an auction like 1D:1H, 2S, because opener can rebid 1S on a normal 19 without any problems. It can definitely be percentage to pass reverses.

[gnasher]

A comparison of the two simulations described in this thread is quite interesting.

Rainer's criteria (as I understand them) gave North 18-20 with 6421, 17-19 with 6430, or 16-18 with 6-5/7-4. Rainer has 4♠ making 33.5% of the time.
Han's criteria gave North 18-19 with 6-4, or 17-18 with 6-5/7-4. Han has 4♠ making 23% of the time.

We have two apparently similar simulations, produced by two sensible people, with a large difference in the results. I don't know whether that's because of the differences in their criteria, or something else. I do think it tells us to treat simulation results with caution.

It would be interesting to see what happened if Rainer tried to replicate Han's simulation, and vice versa. But I realse that both may have better things to do.

[gwnn]

Better than serving the interests of a large bridge forum? I think not!