[DavidKok]

Sorry but you've misunderstood what I wrote, and I stand by my earlier call that pass is not the best option.

Very nice hand, thank you for sharing. Even though you said it's unanimous (and I agree) I think the decision over 6♣ is also interesting and instructive. In fact, polling what people think 6♣ means might also lead to good discussion.

If we bid 6♠ directly I hope partner raises. Does he?

Edit: I'm slow this morning but I just realised that partner might have bid 4♣ fitbid on the first round. This introduces the club suit, shows the fourth spade, and shows willingness to commit to game. I think that might have made our decisions easier.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

<snip>

Missed, that 4C would be a fit jump.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mw64ahw]

Life becomes much easier if you differentiate a 2N bid versus a 3♥ bid in terms of strength/trump support

4♣ for me would be 3-card support and a 5-card ♣ suit with mild slam aspirations.

[Cyberyeti]

mw64ahw, on 2025-May-16, 03:50, said:

Life becomes much easier if you differentiate a 2N bid versus a 3♥ bid in terms of strength/trump support

4♣ for me would be 3-card support and a 5-card ♣ suit with mild slam aspirations.

We play both 2N/3♥ as limit+, but 4/3 card support respectively fit jumps are 4 card support.

[DavidKok]

I want to apologise for the last comment - when two people read something different from what I intended it's likely the writing that's bad, not the readers.

I would definitely not double-then-pass with this hand, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that it was not allowed to pass-then-bid.
My claim is that on the sequence (5♥)-P*-(P)-X; (P)-5♠ partner will be in a worse position to decide what to do than we are now, simply because of the asymmetry of information. Our hand is more extreme than this sequence normally shows. Picture ♠Kxxx, ♥xxx, ♦Qx, ♣Axxx - not the greatest of invites last round, yet 7♠ only needs the 2-1 spade break. Of course I gave partner the best possible hand, but there are many minimum invites where 6♠ (not 7♠) is good and partner still won't know what to do. Worse, there are also maxima where bidding on is bad (♠QJx, ♥Kx, ♦xxx, ♣KQJxx - and this time it's not an absolute maximum! We can add an ace and still be in trouble).
I think it is better to make the slam decision ourselves than to ask partner to cut the knot. This is what I meant with my claim that people put too many hands in the forcing pass.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-16, 04:18, said:

I want to apologise for the last comment - when two people read something different from what I intended it's likely the writing that's bad, not the readers.

I would definitely not double-then-pass with this hand, and I'm sorry for giving the impression that it was not allowed to pass-then-bid.
My claim is that on the sequence (5♥)-P*-(P)-X; (P)-5♠ partner will be in a worse position to decide what to do than we are now, simply because of the asymmetry of information. Our hand is more extreme than this sequence normally shows. Picture ♠Kxxx, ♥xxx, ♦Qx, ♣Axxx - not the greatest of invites last round, yet 7♠ only needs the 2-1 spade break. Of course I gave partner the best possible hand, but there are many minimum invites where 6♠ (not 7♠) is good and partner still won't know what to do. Worse, there are also maxima where bidding on is bad (♠QJx, ♥Kx, ♦xxx, ♣KQJxx - and this time it's not an absolute maximum! We can add an ace and still be in trouble).
I think it is better to make the slam decision ourselves than to ask partner to cut the knot. This is what I meant with my claim that people put too many hands in the forcing pass.

Let me apologize in advance if what I write below is objectionable.

Imo, you are quite right in asserting that there is an informational asymmetry here…but it’s exactly the opposite of what you say.


Opener knows that he has a powerful and shapely hand where slam may be great or may be horrible…or indeed grand may be cold. That depends on what partner has. Does partner have an offensively powerful hand or a defensive looking mess?

Guess who knows?

You give two examples of hands that responder may hold, and of course we both recognize that his hand could be different from either.

Let’s consider QJx Kx xxx KQJxx.

You blast 6S, get doubled and duly go down in your hopeless contract. Sorry partner….I had no way of finding out that your hand was hopeless for slam…I had to guess because I had more information than you did. Seriously?

I pass and partner, with his offensively weak hand and the wasted heart king, doubles. I pull.

I think that if you could poll 50 experts, at least 49 would pass 5S.

Ok, on to what you appear to think is a weaker responding hand….Kxxx xxx Qx Axxx.

Ok, to Walter the walrus this is far weaker than your 3=2=3=5 12 count.

To an actual bridge player it’s far stronger, and I’m astounded that you appear not to see that.

I hold xxx in hearts and the bidding got to 5H almost instantly? And partner made a forcing pass? Just how many hearts do you think opener has?

So I bid 5S…I don’t double. In what universe is doubling the smart move? We have 3 controls, great trump length and strength….I defy you to construct a hand that should pass 5H where Kxxx xxx Qx Axxx doesn’t make 5S a good spot. I’m not bidding 5S as a slam try.

The pass was, in fact, the start of a slam try but responder doesn’t yet know that. The pass could be and often will be about whether to defend 5H doubled or bid 5S, and with Kxxx xxx Qx Axxx I want to play 5S but with short, weak spades, the wasted, on offence, heart King and no side aces, I want to defend.

Now, when I bid 5S, opener knows that slam has to have good play. He could try for grand via 6H (or maybe 6D) but responder should be passing with his offensive 9 count

On the 3=2=3=5 piece of cr*p, I’d pass 5S when opener pulls my double.

On the actual hand, KQxx Qx xx AKxxx, I not only have great offence but I can be morally certain that we belong in slam, so I’ll bid 6C along the way

I have great respect for your opinions, in the usual case, even when I differ from you. But this….I can only think that you have a very strange idea of the forcing pass concept. The forcing pass is about the exchange of information in a situation where the passer lacks sufficient information to make a final decision. You give an easy example of just how silly it is for opener to blast to slam instead of seeking input from partner and you justify this on you possessing more information than responder has. Wtf is wrong with seeking input rather than masterminding?

[mw64ahw]

mikeh, on 2025-May-16, 08:24, said:

Opener knows that he has a powerful and shapely hand ...

My limited understanding of the use of a Forcing Pass is that

• you have to be in game/GF - a moot point since 3♥ is lim+
• a sacrifice has has been made - fairly clear. The ops. think we're making 4♠ so we are now in a GF

Now the Forcing Pass, depending on the method you use, I understand to show either:

• a fairly good offensive hand or
• a moderate offensive/defensive hand.

Given the 'powerful shapely' hand statement above I surmise that we need to Bid rather than Pass or X, but is it an outstanding hand?
Take your pick 5♠ or 6♥ with controls = losers.

[mikeh]

mw64ahw, on 2025-May-16, 10:37, said:

My limited understanding of the use of a Forcing Pass is that

• you have to be in game/GF - a moot point since 3♥ is lim+
• a sacrifice has has been made - fairly clear. The ops. think we're making 4♠ so we are now in a GF

Now the Forcing Pass, depending on the method you use, I understand to show either:

• a fairly good offensive hand or
• a moderate offensive/defensive hand.

Given the 'powerful shapely' hand statement above I surmise that we need to Bid rather than Pass or X, but is it an outstanding hand?
Take your pick 5♠ or 6♥ with controls = losers.

You do need to expand your understanding of a forcing pass.

Over 5H, opener looks at his hand and….

If he thinks that slam is very often (say 80%) going to make…that is….‘I think slam will be good opposite most minimum limit raise hands’, then bid slam or…if he is thinking of grand, bid 6H.

If he thinks that 5S rates to be better than defending 5H when responder has a minimum, and opener has no slam interest opposite a limit raise, bid 5S.

If he thinks that bidding 5S rates to generate a bad result if partner has a minimum, double.

If he isn’t sure…more accurately, if he thinks he needs more input from partner about (a) how good is slam, or (b) are we better defending or bidding…..which are two very different hands…one is offensive but just doesn’t know how high to bid opposite a limit raise and the other doesn’t think 5S is a good contract unless partner has an offensive hand.

Can anyone say that they think that slam will be odds on if partner has a defensively oriented limit raise? Take a look at David’s example of QJx Kx xxx KQJx. Even David, who blasts slam, knows that many responding hands offer no play. Make it Kxx Kx Qxx Axxxx and slam likely fails on the auction….spades rate to be 3-1 even more than the a priori odds, given the 5H bid…and you need the heart ace led to have much play.

So I think it obvious that opener cannot comfortably drive to slam.

So he has a clear pass….to elicit partner’s views

I’ve long thought that many of the regular posters here are players who like to make the decisions for their partnerships. I had not included David in that group until now. Me? I’m fortunate enough that both of my regular partners are true experts…I can and do expect them to share the decision making responsibilities equally….with who makes the final decision frequently as a result of collaborative bidding.

Here, a pass of 5H says that I have one of two hands….slam interest without a hand that tells me that slam is almost always good, or concern about whether to ‘take the plus’ against 5H or try for 650 in 5S.

That does NOT mean that partner is limited to pass or double. He is allowed to express an opinion that slam will be ok opposite the ‘bad’ pass hand…the one where I wasn’t even sure tyat 5S was a good contract. Here, for example, responder can see that if opener was thinking of 5S, then slam has to be good.

I’m struggling with why it is that multiple posters don’t seem to understand what I’ve been saying. I don’t think it’s because I’m not explaining it. I’m beginning to think that it’s because either they know what a pass says (although the comments suggest otherwise) or they don’t trust partner so feel they need to take charge…which is the lamentable trait I mentioned above.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on 2025-May-16, 12:11, said:

I’m beginning to think that it’s because either they know what a pass says (although the comments suggest otherwise)
or they don’t trust partner so feel they need to take charge…which is the lamentable trait I mentioned above.

"Don't trust partner" covers a whole lot of ground

In my case, I don't ever recall discussing whether a limit raise establishes a forcing pass at the five level
I'm not confident about our meta agreements
So, in part, I'm not willing to risk a pass

This is very different from "Partner has shitty judgement so I need to mastermind"

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on 2025-May-16, 12:30, said:

"Don't trust partner" covers a whole lot of ground

In my case, I don't ever recall discussing whether a limit raise establishes a forcing pass at the five level
I'm not confident about our meta agreements
So, in part, I'm not willing to risk a pass

This is very different from "Partner has shitty judgement so I need to mastermind"

I agree. If you think that partner might pass if you pass, then you have a very different problem, and bidding 5S has to be better than risking a pass. 5S isn’t a slam try…or isn’t clearly a slam try….but partner is still allowed to bid with significant extras, so you might miss the grand but you’ll get to the small over. 5S. Partner might even guess to bid grand over 6S. The thought of blasting slam or trying for grand, directly over 5H, leaves me cold. I just don’t understand the thinking processes involved….but I’ve never liked masterminding. Indeed, masterminding is possibly the best way to end a partnership, as far as I am concerned. Who wants to be in a partnership in which partner makes unilateral decisions whenever the opportunity…not the ‘need ‘ (which can happen but rarely does)….arises? Ok, if you’re a client playing with a pro and your goal is to score well, as opposed to improving one’s game. Otherwise, forget it.

[DavidKok]

This is becoming far more heated and demeaning than I was expecting. You state I'm masterminding just because I disagree with your decision on this deal, when both of us get to the same contract? I was not expecting you to question my past contributions and claim that my decision on this deal is due to a clear lack of understanding.
I'll be staying out of this discussion from here on out. I don't think more good will come from my involvement.