Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Michael Rosenberg
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 378 379 380 381
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don: If by “Mike” you mean me, my opinion is that each partnership needs to make rules governing what is and is not a forcing pass. Without that, you get hands like this, where some think it's forcing ('the janitor knows it') and some think it's not.

Knowing what you're doing is often more important that having what you're doing be optimal.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Predicting what this East (who bid 5) might or might not do reminds me of the sign outside the closed fortune-teller's shop. “Out of business due to unforeseen circumstances”.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK. It seems weird to me to bid 2 on 5-4 - which might put us 2 or 3 cards under our longest fit, rather than bidding 2 which will put us at most one card under our longest fit
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“When you are in a forcing pass, you sometimes make doubles with no real hope of setting the contract…”

If so, that's a pretty good indication that you would be better off if you were NOT be in a forcing pass situation.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No - I just don't do smiley faces. You need to imagine mine.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From the OP: “More likely they will balance if you rebid 2 of some m”

When would you ever rebid 2?
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sure. Playing for a <1% layout after making a bid that rates to be right about 1% of the time makes sense.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course, in practice, forcing pass situation tend to carry even more ‘messages’ (even excluding bids and slam tries):

Fastish pass = ‘I don’t really want to do anything'
Slow pass = ‘I really want to do SOMETHING’
Fast Double = ‘I really want to defend’
Slowish Double = ‘Not sure, but I lean toward defending’

If the Fast Pass is succesfully passed out, you are told ‘There was no hesitation! - you have no complaint.’

If they act over the slow pass, you are told ‘ It’s a Forcing Pass! No UI!'

If they sit for the Fast Double, you are told ‘I respect my partner’s decision here'.

The only ‘protection’ you might get is over the slow double - but will probably be told it's ‘normal tempo’, unless it's really slow.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agreed - I was talking generally. On this hand the forcing pass issue was not relevant - other than causing North to make a silly bid. Both players had an easy double of 5 - regardless of whether pass was forcing.
Oct. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John A: “The big problem with forcing pass is that it;s needed to invert the meaning of some bids in order to have a pass and pull sequence that is slam invitational.”

This is the conventional wisdom, but I disagree that it is “needed”. In a forcing auction where we have shown a fit, one can play the direct bid is the slam try, and pass-pull as not a slam try.
This helps a lot in auctions where the partnership is unclear as to whether it actually IS a forcing auction.

There are theoretical advantages to each method. I've always preferred pass-pull as stronger (though I've played it the other way with some partners).
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ken R: That is not what Kieran is saying. He is combatting the argument that EW combined values are not that limited, because West might have a (some other) pretty good hand - but chose to make a simple raise because he knew East is a passed hand.

While I think that argument has some validity, I'd use it more for saying that WEst might have extra defense. If West had a good offensive hand (ne where 4 might be in the picture) I think he'd bid 3.

So, just looking at the EW auction, I don't really feel they are bidding 5 to make.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike M: “ I am not going to worry about opponents' careless bids.”

Nobody is asking you to worry. I'm merely making the argument that the combination of East's original pass and West's gentle raise make it reasonable to treat this as a forcing pass auction.

The following statements are both true:

1) There is nothing about the EW auction that gives me the feeling that 5 is going to make.

2) There is nothing about the N-S auction that gives me the feeling that 4 is not going to make.

So I understand pairs who would want to treat it as forcing.

While it wouldn't fall under any of my own rules for Forcing Passes, I would classify it (as I sometimes do) as ‘not technically Forcing, but I really don’t expect it will be passed out'.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“W is not a passed opponent, W is an opponent who has no good bid over 1. ”

True. But it's also true that West is an opponent who chose a simple raise to 3 when he could have shown a strong raise by bidding 3.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Miroslav: So if Charles (and you) meant trick 4:

You said “low club from dummy at trick (4) then cash all the hearts will not work on 1345 distribution”.

In your play of instead cashing only 3 hearts (both follow) and leading a diamond, what do you do when West plays an honor on your first play?

Btw, if replying, try replying in the same sub-thread - rather than starting a new sub-thread.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't trick 3 a heart return from East?
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree. If FP does not apply, South, with AJx in their suit and xxxx in our suit, should still double. If FP applies, North, with his flat non-offensive hand, should still double.
Oct. 3
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deleted - missed the description of 3
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you play in 5 that rates to fail by one to two tricks, instead of defending 5 which rates to fail by somewhere between two to five tricks, there's a good chance that BOTH players did something really wrong.

As to the forcing pass, the combination of East's original pass and West's gentle raise to 3 make it unlikely 5 will ever be passed out. Whether it's actually forcing or not should depend on the agreements of the particular partnership.
Oct. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Marty H: “if I had a big hand with diamonds, I'd have a relatively easy 3H Q-bid.”

It might be “easy”, and partner will know you have a good hand. But partnor will have no idea whether you have 3-card or 6-card - so your bid is not that descriptive.
When you pick up a good hand with diamonds, you are clearly better off having a forcing 3 bid in you arsenal. The best contract could be in clubs, diamonds, NT or even, conceivably, spades. And the right level might be part-score, game, slam or grand slam.

Obviously, a forcing 3 bid won't solvce all problems here, But you are way better off than if you need to bid 3.

I can't say I've gotten decent results with ELC. I've rarely played it and when I did, my memory is that I had one clearly negative result and one maybe positive result. My obsewrvation of others has been similar - some good and some bad.

Just like Support Doubles (in a non-Strong Club context), ELC is theoretically unsound. But I've seen some clear wins for it - especially over 1.
Oct. 3
1 2 3 4 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 378 379 380 381
.

Bottom Home Top