[eagles123]

---

2s is a weak jump overcall

imps

would pass here be forcing?
thanks

Eagles

[kuhchung]

no

[WesleyC]

There isn't really a right or wrong answer here - it depends how complex you want to make your forcing pass agreements.

I'd play it as forcing in my main partnership at this vulnerability because West is a passed hand.

[paulg]

No. We have not established game values.

[nate_m]

NO.

[SteveMoe]

FP requires both a fit and GF values at the 4-level (inv+ at the 5-level). Neither have been proven. Even with the meta agreement that sets a FP when opponents are CLEARLY preempting, we still need an established fit.

None of these conditions are met. So not a FP. PASS simply says I have no more to add.

[helene_t]

No we don't need an established fit. Actually fp is useful for finding a fit as you can pass with a flexible hand and bid directly with commitment to a particular suit. Here for example direct 5c or 4n would be a twosuiter while pass and pull could be a threesuiter. Of course you can also double with a threesuiter and passpull with a strong twosuiter.

Whatever you agree, though, if you think that it's evident from the auction that it is wrong to defend undiubled then pass is forcing.

[mcphee]

The first point is "this is your hand" partner dbled 2S and should have a minimum of 10 HCP and 2 places to play. One on those places is H. I believe this is your hamd and FP applies. Pass and pull is strong, dble = losers, suits bid, i hope we make. Lets say opening bidder holds x Axx AKQ10xx Kxx are they bidding 5D when they can be gin for 6 and bidding 6 when they can be cold for 1 down?

[kenberg]

I expect that on this auction I, as opener, will fairly often have a 1D bid based on 12-14 highs. I would like to be able to express that fact by passing. When I have this minimal hand, partner, unless the opponents are being very inventive, will have quite a good hand and he will not need either me or a forcing pass agreement to tell him he should act.

Of course I will sometimes have other types of hands. Well, when the bidding is at 4S when it comes back to me I cannot cope with all possible hands. Choices have to be made, but I start with wanting to be able to say "Since I opened I have an opener, but that's all I have" and I think that a non-forcing pass is a great way to say that.

Otherwise put: We may not be able to beat 4SX and we might not be able to make anything at the 5 level, doubled and vul. My idea of the Law of Total Tricks is that if I am to be playing a vul 5DX I would like my total to be 11.

[jdonn]

Unless my partner doesn't want to, I play that when the opponents preempt, we act over it, and a passed hand raises to game, pass is forcing. It's possibly exploitable but that is only a problem in theory not in practice.

[WesleyC]

SteveMoe, on 2015-April-07, 22:43, said:

FP requires both a fit and GF values at the 4-level (inv+ at the 5-level). Neither have been proven. Even with the meta agreement that sets a FP when opponents are CLEARLY preempting, we still need an established fit.

None of these conditions are met. So not a FP. PASS simply says I have no more to add.

Your rule for what constitutes a forcing pass isn't wrong (and certainly has the advantage of simplicity) however it isn't usual to have a fit in order for a pass to be forcing. One of the most powerful uses of a forcing pass is the ability to convey the message of a partial fit without committing our side to a dangerous level.

For example in a less ambiguous auction like:

1H (2S) 3C (4S)
?

Given that 3C is GF, I think forcing passes should apply. By making a forcing pass you have the ability to show an offensively orientated minimum hand without committing your side to the 5 level which I think is a huge benefit. With good agreements about continuations you also get far more precision in slam auctions, especially when opener holds a flexible forward going hand. Giving up the chance to defend 4S undoubled is a very small price to pay for the benefits.

kenberg, on 2015-April-08, 07:41, said:

I expect that on this auction I, as opener, will fairly often have a 1D bid based on 12-14 highs. I would like to be able to express that fact by passing. When I have this minimal hand, partner, unless the opponents are being very inventive, will have quite a good hand and he will not need either me or a forcing pass agreement to tell him he should act.

Your assertion "...unless the opponents are being very inventive, (partner) will have quite a good hand..." is the exact reason that you might consider using a forcing pass in this auction.

I also think you're missing the benefits that you gain by playing pass as forcing. Rather than being forced to pass on all minimum hands (or force our side to the 5 level), you can differentiate between an offensive minimum and a defensive minimum and leave the final choice up to partner.

[SteveMoe]

@helene_t jdonn and WesleyC, thanks for rousting me from my stupor.
1) Agree fit is not a condition. Any GF creates one. Inv+ values and their action at 5 level creates one. Etc...
2) Completely missed advancer was a passed hand.
3) Agree FP essential when they preempt and we own the hand.
Appreciate your thoughtful replies.

FP applies here.

Now I'm going back to sleep.

[monikrazy]

In general, pass is not forcing here.


However, If a partnership employs a sound bidding style, it may benefit from such an agreement.

[dave_beer]

"If it isn't obvious or otherwise agreed, then it’s non-forcing."

The fast that different responders have different answers means it isn't obvious or that they have otherwise agreed to play it as forcing.

The fact that you are asking this question means it isn't agreed upon or you forgot.

Ergo, it isn't forcing.

[case_no_6]

First off, I don't think there is a 100% certain standard agreement rule for this situation. I think most would say that the standard rule for forcing pass situations is that passes are forcing when the partnership is vulnerable and it has been established that the partnership has committed to bidding a game contract.

In this auction, neither game forcing values have been established nor has there been a clear commitment established to bid a game, so it is certainly reasonable to assert that opener's pass over 4S can be played as non-forcing.

But that said, I can tell you that, in practice, given that we are vulnerable, the opponents are not vulnerable, both opponents have announced weakness (one is a passed hand and the other overcalled preemptively), and responder has suggested at least game invitational values (by making a takeout/negative double that requires opener to bid at the 2NT or 3-level, it is not a high percentage decision to adopt a strategy that allows the opponents to play undoubled. In fact, I think you are likely to experience a poor result (a "fix") if 4S is a make. So, I think it is sensible for thoughtful players to assume that both opener and responder should appreciate all of these circumstances and would operate with the presumption that opener's pass over 4S should be treated as forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

No, even if playing a very agressive FP set.
West is a passed hand, this gives East some liberty to define "what" he wants to sell as weak
at a given point in time.

North can expect South to reopen with inv.+ values, and South should do this, if he knowes
the partnership has more than half of the deck, but that is it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Trump Echo]

No, how can it be forcing when opener doesn't know the strength of partner's hand?

[Rossoneri]

"standard" would be that pass is not forcing, as there hasn't been a GF.