[han]

I started out with just requiring 18-20 HCP points, and least 6-4 and at most 2 spades. However, the first 4 hands I got were clear 2C openers. I lowered the requirements to 18-19 HCP with 6-4 distribution and 17-18 with 7-4 or 6-5 distribution. It still allowed for some hands that some would open 2C with, for example the fifth hand I found was AKJxxx Ax AKxx x, that look slike a clear 2C opener to me, as well as board 7: KQJ10xxx A AKJx x. I didn't see a hand which I didn't consider a jumpshift, it seems rare to have an 18-count 6-4 hand without queens in the short suits that doesn't jumpshift (but should be possible with a stiff king).

The double dummy results were as follows:

3S = 64%
4H = 10%
4S = 23%
One of the games makes = 31%

Given that my requirements generated hands that were too strong rather than too weak, this suggests to me that it would be really foolish to bid on. Unless you are playing with a mentally unstable partner of course, in which case it might well be good bridge to never pass a forcing bid.

[FrancesHinden]

Obviously the style of 2C opener matters; I would never open AKJxxx Ax AKxx x 2C, for example. And if I happened to be playing Acol 2-bids I would pass more often.

[gwnn]

Just because a bid loses imps it does not make said bid foolish. Personally I'd pass but I don't think carrying on to game in a gameforcing auction can be foolish.

[han]

gwnn, on 2011-April-01, 14:14, said:

Just because a bid loses imps it does not make said bid foolish. Personally I'd pass but I don't think carrying on to game in a gameforcing auction can be foolish.

Maybe no bridge mistake should be called foolish (or idiotic, or moronic, etc.). After all, we all make many mistakes when we play bridge.

However, I don't think there should be any difference between bidding on with this hand and (mild?) overbidding on pretty much any other hand. It can work out well, but in the long run it doesn't, especially at matchpoints.

[JLOGIC]

Thanks for simulations.

Quote

Just because a bid loses imps it does not make said bid foolish. Personally I'd pass but I don't think carrying on to game in a gameforcing auction can be foolish.

If anyone knowingly bid on because "they were in a GF" if they knew that it was losing a lot of matchpoints in the long run (say they knew and agreed with the simulations), I'd say that's foolish. What is the purpose of bridge? If people just thought that game rated to be good, I'd say that they had bad judgment or were overestimating this hands value.

Yes I suppose it's possible that we were playing with a partner who was super irrational and would go on megatilt so much if we passed and it was wrong that it would hurt our future EV so much that we should bid to prevent that. In that case, I'd quit playing with that partner.

[gnasher]

You shouldn't consider this deal in isolation, and the reason has nothing to do with the effect on partner's mental state.

Suppose that partner knows you are likely to pass a forcing bid because you have an unsuitable minimum. Next time he has a really strong hand, where he wants to play game even opposite an unsuitable minimum, he may decide that it's safer to guess what the final contract should be, instead of making a forcing bid that allows him to investigate properly. Thus your potential gain on this deal has to be considered against potential losses on subsequent deals with the same partner.

[han]

Sounds like a mentally unstable partner to me.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2011-April-01, 16:38, said:

You shouldn't consider this deal in isolation, and the reason has nothing to do with the effect on partner's mental state.

Suppose that partner knows you are likely to pass a forcing bid because you have an unsuitable minimum. Next time he has a really strong hand, where he wants to play game even opposite an unsuitable minimum, he may decide that it's safer to guess what the final contract should be, instead of making a forcing bid that allows him to investigate properly. Thus your potential gain on this deal has to be considered against potential losses on subsequent deals with the same partner.

I don't understand this argument. If it's right to pass here, then occasionally passing in this GF auction is a winner if partner just completely ignores that possibility in his bidding. Unless he is irrational, his adjusting to that possibility will only increase the gains of our (responder's) new strategy of occasionally passing - I imagine, he might bid 4S instead of 3S when that is just equally descriptive for slam purposes, and similar things. (Other than that, adjusting your bidding for the possibility that responder has a sub-minimum hand that is now a zero count opposite most of opener's hands would obviously be an overreaction.)

[JLOGIC]

Yeah, it seems like there are 3 options:

1) We are passing too often with hands where game makes
2) We never have slam in which case partner SHOULD be jumping to game (obviously not the case in this auction)
3) Partner should just ignore the very rare possibility of us passing when he has a hand where that would be wrong because it will hurt our slam bidding too much.

If 3 is correct but partner is not doing it out of fear, then that is the exact definition of the effect of us passing a forcing bid taking a toll on partner's mental state.

There is really no meta gain of never passing in this auction if both people are rational.

[Zelandakh]

rhm, on 2011-April-01, 06:13, said:

I tried a simulation (1000 deals) with the following specifications for North: At least 4 ♦s and 6♠s and at most 2♥s.

Why 6 spades Rainer? Is 3S here not simply a grope? Sure it is going to have 6 spades alot of the time but it can also be a hand without fit looking for something in clubs from partner. I think not including 5242 hands, perhaps 5143 hands with ♣xxx, etc, in the simulation is bound to tip the statistics towards 4S.

For what it is worth, it seems to me that if the stats suggest that passing here is clear then we probably should have passed 1S the first time around - it is not like we are unlikely to get another chance at MPs if partner has a big heart fit.

[gnasher]

Suppose that you're opener after 1♠-1NT;3♦-3♥, and you think that

- If you bid 3♠
* There's a 10% chance that partner will pass 3♠ when we can make 4♠.
* There's a 1% chance that partner will pass 3♠ when we can't make 4♠
* There is a 10% chance of reaching a making slam

- If you bid 4♠
* There is a 5% chance of reaching a making slam

If he follows the same strategy as you, that is to consider only the effect on the current deal, he should bid 4♠ rather than 3♠. That gains 9% of the time and only loses 5% of the time.

These figures are not supposed to be realistic, but they do show that if you're thinking of passing a forcing bid (or any other deviation from your agreements), it's incorrect to consider only the effect on the current deal.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2011-April-02, 04:32, said:

Why 6 spades Rainer? Is 3S here not simply a grope? Sure it is going to have 6 spades alot of the time but it can also be a hand without fit looking for something in clubs from partner. I think not including 5242 hands, perhaps 5143 hands with ♣xxx, etc, in the simulation is bound to tip the statistics towards 4S.

I think that all 5143 shapes would bid 3NT. There are some 5242 that might bid 3♠ - AQJ10x Kx AKQx xx, for example - but they're rare.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2011-April-02, 06:09, said:

Suppose that you're opener after 1♠-1NT;3♦-3♥, and you think that

- If you bid 3♠
* There's a 10% chance that partner will pass 3♠ when we can make 4♠.
* There's a 1% chance that partner will pass 3♠ when we can't make 4♠
* There is a 10% chance of reaching a making slam

- If you bid 4♠
* There is a 5% chance of reaching a making slam

If he follows the same strategy as you, that is to consider only the effect on the current deal, he should bid 4♠ rather than 3♠. That gains 9% of the time and only loses 5% of the time.

These figures are not supposed to be realistic, but they do show that if you're thinking of passing a forcing bid (or any other deviation from your agreements), it's incorrect to consider only the effect on the current deal.

Let me try again: Let's say we consider the following three strategies:
1) Responder never passes a forcing bid by opener.
2) Responder is allowed to pass a forcing bid by opener, but opener ignores that possibility.
3) Responder is allowed to pass a forcing bid by opener, and opener will take that into account.

We are saying 2) is a better strategy than 1). You seem to say that 3) may be a worse strategy than 1). Well, if that is true then 3) is a worse strategy than 2), and opener should ignore that possibility.

As for the percentages you give, a chance of 11% that responder will pass is way too high.

[gnasher]

OK, I'm convinced.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2011-April-02, 10:21, said:

OK, I'm convinced.

I am sorry that you are convinced.

"These figures are not supposed to be realistic, but they do show that if you're thinking of passing a forcing bid (or any other deviation from your agreements), it's incorrect to consider only the effect on the current deal."

This was a worthwhile paragraph by you. I took it to refer to not only the current deal and the given auction, but also other auctions where one might become concerned that the correct forcing rebid will be passed ---and take a different action.

The argument which apparently convinced you was based on the given auction, seemingly contrary to your point about the overall effect.

[mtvesuvius]

My original post wasn't exactly well worded, but the main reason why I would not pass is exactly what Andy stated, the longterm effects are not worth it usually.

Just recently at a regional, a few friends and I had a two hour discussion on this, everyone from the US felt it was fine to pass if you feel it is within your best interest on that particular hand. I actually this is a bit of a Cultural Legacy type thing (I've been reading too much Gladwell...). The two people who were from South America and one from Europe who were there all believed it was wrong to pass, because you violate partnership trust and partnership agreements. I think there is something in US bridge players' mindsets that give them to confidence that their partner will be understanding, and would do the same if in their position.

I am also convinced by the simulations that passing on this particular hand is correct, however weighing that with the other trust factors. I generally believe that if I think an action is right, I will take it, however if it involves something highly unusual that might affect things negatively in the future and the decision is close, I err on the cautious side. In this case, I think the decision is close enough not to risk having problems in the future, and would bid on.

In a couple of my serious partnerships, we have had discussions about this matter, and are both OK if one of us does something extraordinary that they believe is right at the table. Trusting partner's judgement is an important part of this, and being able to know they are trying for the best result on every hand is very important. Spite passing and other revenge tactics never end well (except when trump split 6-0 and no game makes). As long as partner is comfortable with me doing so, I think I've been convinced that passing is correct.

[fred]

As far as I can tell, for most of the history of bridge, the one and only time that experts in my part of the world would even think about passing a forcing bid was when they had psyched. The rationale behind this attitude was "respect for the partnership", "concern about future results", "bids are either forcing or not in the same way that a woman is either pregnant or not" etc... This point of view was so strong and so pervasive that it fell into the category of a "motherhood rule" - it was not that long ago that you literally *never* saw an expert pass a bid that he/she knew was forcing.

As far as I can tell, Kit Woolsey more or less single-handedly got America's experts to rethink this position (mostly through contributions he made to The Master Solvers' Club in The Bridge World magazine during the past 15 years or so).

As far as I can tell, the attitude that Woolsey trumpeted (and that Justin does a good job of explaning) is now dominant among the leading players in America who are younger than me (46).

As far as I can tell, although the Woolsey-approach has also gained followers among some of the leading American players who are older than me (including Kit himself of course), there is more resistance there. No doubt this is at least partly a function of the how difficult it can be to teach new tricks to old dogs.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-April-02, 10:38, said:

I am sorry that you are convinced.

"These figures are not supposed to be realistic, but they do show that if you're thinking of passing a forcing bid (or any other deviation from your agreements), it's incorrect to consider only the effect on the current deal."

This was a worthwhile paragraph by you. I took it to refer to not only the current deal and the given auction, but also other auctions where one might become concerned that the correct forcing rebid will be passed ---and take a different action.

The argument which apparently convinced you was based on the given auction, seemingly contrary to your point about the overall effect.

Not at all. We can apply Cherdano's argument to the complete set of situations where it's possible to score more by passing a forcing bid. Considering Cherdano's three strategies:
- 2 (by definition) scores more than 1.
- 3 obviously can't score worse than 2.

Therefore 3 scores more than 1.

[aguahombre]

fred, on 2011-April-02, 11:12, said:

The rationale behind this attitude was ... "concern about future results"...

As far as I can tell, although the Woolsey-approach has also gained followers among some of the leading American players who are older than me (including Kit himself of course), there is more resistance there. No doubt this is at least partly a function of the how difficult it can be to teach new tricks to old dogs.

It won't be long until future results will be part of my wishful thinking and not a realistic concern (66). When that happens this old dog might adopt the new trick.

[JLOGIC]

cherdano, on 2011-April-02, 07:14, said:

Let me try again: Let's say we consider the following three strategies:
1) Responder never passes a forcing bid by opener.
2) Responder is allowed to pass a forcing bid by opener, but opener ignores that possibility.
3) Responder is allowed to pass a forcing bid by opener, and opener will take that into account.

We are saying 2) is a better strategy than 1). You seem to say that 3) may be a worse strategy than 1). Well, if that is true then 3) is a worse strategy than 2), and opener should ignore that possibility.

As for the percentages you give, a chance of 11% that responder will pass is way too high.

Very good.

Fred: It's funny because I think Woolsey advocates passing in way too many forcing bid auctions that I would never dream of (ie, if we did some simulations on some of his passes, I'd bet that they would be wrong too often to make them worthwhile). 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.

Jumpshifts are the same. Basically we can respond very light, and opener is limited by not opening 2C, it seems like the logic for jumpshift/reverse auctions to be forcing cannot hold up in those scenarios. I don't think responding with this 5 count is a psyche or abnormal, but the auction has gone badly enough for us that our hand is basically worth a psyche at this point.

Adam: How about this point of view, I would be upset if my partner knowingly took the wrong bridge action because he thought I was in a fragile mental state. I and my partner want to win, and I would lose trust for my partner if they were knowingly taking actions that did not help us win in the long term.

To have "long term trust issues" because partner passed in an auction where I was a limited hand does not make sense to me.

All,

This is actually funny because I was playing in a 1 session swiss at a regional once. Obviously we had lost that day in the knockout, and we lost our first match. My teammates (a pro and a sponsor with a sometimes volatile relationship), were fighting really badly. They wanted to withdraw, but since that is bad for business, I said that we should change up the partnerships and finish the event. So I played with our sponsor, who I had played almost no boards with in my life.

We were crushing our opps (as you might imagine in a 1 session swiss) and the 4th board the auction went 1S p 1N p 3C p ?

I had a similar hand as the OP, except I was 1543. I decided not to pass since 3C is much more likely to be manufactured than 3D, and because we might make 4H still. So I bid 3H and my partner bid 3S. I considered that if I passed and it was wrong, I might get fired or set my partner off, and I also considered that it was an event that we could not mathematically win, nor did we care about winning, and that it was a match we were probably going to score a blitz in anyways...

But I passed. My partner had a shocked look on her face, a look that said "I PAY THIS IDIOT TO PLAY WITH ME??? HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW FORCING BIDS!" I passed because it just seemed so right/percentage that it was not even close.

The point of this story is just to illustrate how much I believe passing in these situations is right, and also to make fun of me (several years later, older and wiser, I would never pass given those circumstances!).

Luckily we made 140, and we can still have a good laugh about it. I told my teammate that I was trying to make her appreciate playing with him