The forcing pass

This is a subject that covers many situations and much has been written on forcing passes after a game bid (or after a game-forcing bid). Fascinating as that subject is, it's been well covered elsewhere (particularly Robson & Segal's excellent book: Partnership Bidding at Bridge: The Contested Auction). And this blog from a couple of years ago: No wonder it takes so long to learn this game--the denouement, covers the situation where one of us has taken an action showing a "sound raise" (aka limit raise or better).

The other situation where the forcing pass comes up at low levels is after an opening 1-bid has been doubled and redoubled. Given a disciplined redouble, which "implies no fit" and thus, in my opinion, denies three (or more) cards in support for partner's major unless it is a very flat hand, our side is in a force. Not to game but, by convention, through the two-level.

In other words, the opponents may not play a contract at the two-level or below unless it is doubled. Of course, we can continue bidding to the three level (or game) if we think that is better. But in the following auction, pass is 100% forcing. But pass does seem in this situation to be not very descriptive.

So, what would West's various bids mean? 2♣ would show a minimum opener with presumably six (or perhaps five) clubs and would tend to deny much defense against a spade contract. 2♦ or 2♥ would still be a reverse, although since partner has announced 10+ hcp, we might not be as strong as otherwise. More likely, the 1♠ bid has made life awkward for our expected rebid (1NT?) and so we bid 2♦/2♥ instead.

2♠ would tend to show some sort of distributional monster that wants to force to game. The given hand seems like a case in point. 3♣ would be descriptive but non-forcing. I'm not really sure if there are any other bids (other than 3NT) that make much sense here.

What this hand should not do is double. Double here says, I have a minimum hand (although at favorable vulnerability, we might have a maximum hand too) but spades is my second suit. Something like ♠KJ96 ♥Q3 ♦QT5 ♣KQ83. Hopefully, we will be plus 200 when we probably have no game. With significantly more than 10 hcp, partner can of course pull the double to a game contract, knowing that spades are stopped, and that we need 600 rather than 200 or 500.

With any other hand, that's to say nothing particular to say, pass is just fine (it definitely doesn't in any way limit the strength of your hand because it is 100% forcing). Pass would however, tend to limit the distribution of your hand.

For more on my thoughts about redouble, see The blue card.

No wonder it takes so long to learn this game - the denouement

My previous blog No wonder it takes so long to learn this game! has generated a lot of discussion both here on blogger.com and also at BridgeWinners. I really appreciate everyone's contributions. I've learned an important lesson in the complex curriculum of competitive bidding, in particular when the partnership can stop in four-of-a-minor after a game-forcing sequence (almost never).

Although I was clearly in a minority of one in my thinking about my partner's 4♣ call, I wasn't ready to give up on what seemed to me to be bridge logic until I heard back from my competitive bidding guru Andrew Robson. Thanks, Andrew.

In my own defense, I will point out that this notion of "game-forcing" being forcing only to 3NT or the four-level wasn't my own idea. I've read it in several places (although frustratingly now I don't remember where exactly). But I think I've got clarification now. In particular, in a non-competitive auction we can stop in four-of-a-minor only when we lack controls in the unbid suit and neither partner has sufficient extras to go to the five-level. If the opponents are silly enough to blunder into such an auction, we will of course take the opportunity to punish them. So, once the auction gets competitive, we will either double them or bid our game. No stopping in four-of-a-minor!

So, with the help of all the input, including the votes from the BridgeWinners polls, I've formulated some competitive bidding "rules" (I don't claim these as being in any way original). These rules revolve around the concept of a "committed" contract or level. A specific committed contract arises when one partner makes a call which forces the partnership to reach a particular higher-ranking contract. Examples include Bergen raises, Inverted Minor raises, Jacoby 2NT, Truscott/Jordan 2NT, cue-bids of the enemy suit, fit-showing jumps, etc. Some of these calls may include an "or better" clause which suggests that the bidder himself plans to keep on bidding beyond the committed contract if he has extras. In all cases of a committed contract, there is at least some element of fit, although in the case of an "or better" call, the bidder may be planning on or hoping for some other strain, such as no-trump.

When only a level, typically game, has been committed, it implies that no suit has been agreed and thus the partnership is committed to any contract that satisfies the level requirement. In such a case, the number one priority is to determine the strain of our game contract. Thus, showing support below game is 100% forcing to game – yes, even if it four-of-a-minor! [This is why, in the auction in the first post on this subject, 4♣ was forcing – and actually more encouraging than 5♣]. Denying support (by passing) and then pulling double (or 3NT) to 4♣ might be non-forcing – it seems to say "partner, I have a really bad hand, but I think you might be better off playing 4♣ than anything else." This probably requires some prior thought (but isn't likely to occur with much frequency).

In general, where this is a commitment, the partnership is said to be "in a force." This has the following implication:

• the opponents may not play a contract below the commitment unless it is doubled.

And this further implies that:

• a direct pass over intervention below the commitment is 100% forcing.

The other key question about the commitment is its level: are we committed to game? or only to a part-score? This matters when the opponents intervene with a bid above our commitment. If we are committed to game, then the force is still in effect. There are some possible exceptions to this blanket statement, but these are beyond the scope of this article. See, for example, Robson and Segal: Partnership Bidding – The Contested Auction.

At all other times in a competitive auction, i.e. when there is no commitment, we are back to "normal bridge." Thus, bidding shows something extra and passing says you have nothing to say. Double means whatever you and your partner have agreed to. But, based on all of the recent polls and articles I've seen on BridgeWinners, any time we have not yet found a fit and the most recent bid is below game, double is almost always takeout-oriented or "cards" where there is no explicit pre-agreement.

So, let me try to summarize these rules (where intervention is always a bid – doubles are out of scope for this discussion):

• Intervention below committed contract: when a partnership is committed to a particular contract, any opponent's intervention of a bid which ranks below the committed contract imposes the following rules on direct bids:
• bidding the committed contract shows no interest in defending or probing for a higher-scoring contract (i.e. it is a minimum hand, both defensively and offensively) and is therefore the only non-forcing call available (other than double) – this can be thought of as a form of fast arrival if you like;
• for the sake of argument, double is assumed here to be penalty-oriented but note that the question of employing "pass-double inversion" is according to partnership agreement (and not in scope for this discussion);
• all other calls are 100% forcing:
• pass tends to show extra high cards without extra distribution and suggests at least the possibility of a penalty;
• all other bids below the committed contract are trial bids for a higher-scoring contract (just as they would be if there had been no intervention);
• bids above the committed contract show extras and, obviously, raise the level of commitment (again, we're essentially ignoring the intervention).
• Intervention below committed level: similar to the above, but:
• showing support is the first priority:
• if this is still below the commitment, this is obviously forcing and more encouraging than supporting directly at the committed level;
• otherwise, our support bid is not forcing because we have reached our committed level;
• pass is forcing and denies support;
• double is again the subject of partnership agreement.
• Intervention above committed part-score contract: normal bridge logic:
• bidding shows extras;
• passing shows nothing to say;
• double is penalty (since pass is non-forcing, if you have the hand for penalizing them, you have to do it).
• Intervention above committed game contract:
• subject to possible exceptions (see discussion above), we are in a "force":
• pass is forcing;
• double and pass are subject to pass-double inversion if agreed;
• pass-and-pull is slam-invitational;
• bidding on is "to play."
• Intervention above committed level: this situation is a little more complex because the intervention may have precluded supporting at the committed level in one strain, but not in another:
• pass (forcing) denies the ability to support at the committed level (i.e. we might still be able to support but it would require going beyond our committed level);

Some example sequences:

1. 1♥ p 2NT 3♦: the partnership will play either 4♥ or a heart/no-trump slam – unless defending the opponents' doubled contract looks better; therefore pass is forcing and suggests that you wouldn't at all mind if partner decides to make a penalty double; any other bid below 4♥ is control-showing; of course, an immediate bid of 4♥ says you have a bare minimum (as it would without the interference) and furthermore that you would not welcome partner's penalty double.
2. 1♥ 1♠ 2♠ 3♦: the partnership will play at least 3♥ but partner may have higher ambitions of course – pass is forcing and suggests a relatively balanced hand with at least a little extra – if partner can make a penalty double you won't pull it; an immediate call of 3♥ (the committed contract) says you have no extra strength or distribution and have no interest in penalizing the opponents or of bidding beyond 3♥.
3. 1♥ X 2NT 3♣: the partnership will play at least 3♥ as before (assuming that 2NT is Truscott/Jordan); 3♦ suggests extra distribution (but implies no extra strength) which you hope will help partner decide how high to go if there is more competition.
4. 1♥ X 2NT 3♠: they have bid beyond our committed part-score contract so all "normal" bidding notions are back in force – bidding shows extras (either high cards, distribution or both); 4♦ suggests extra distribution and no extra strength and forces our side to at least 4♥. You hope the diamond bid will help partner decide how high to go if there is yet more competition.
5. 1♥ p 2♣ 2♦: the partnership is committed to game, but we don't know which game yet; in this situation (there have been no jumps or cue-bids yet by our side), I do recommend pass-double inversion (as my regular readers know) so that pass keeps open (and suggests) the possibility of defending 2♦X while denying support for clubs; double therefore shows a hand which is relatively short in diamonds (and clubs) and therefore likely to have four spades – this could be happily converted to penalty in appropriate circumstances (rare). With two stoppers in diamonds one partner or the other is likely to bid no-trump (unless perhaps we are at favorable vulnerability in which case double becomes more tempting).
6. 1♥ p 1♠ p 3♣ 3♦ (the original problem auction): 4♣ is forcing and showing some slam interest; 5♣ is not forcing; pass denies club or heart support (and suggests no great ability to stop diamonds).

Every bid tells a story

This is a topic I've been thinking about writing on for some time now.  EBTAS is essentially a group of sub-principles of bridge bidding:

• the principle of no undos;
• the principle of telling your story once only;
• the principle of substantive discretionary bids;
• the principle of fast arrival;
• the curious principle of the dog in the night-time.

Each call you make, be it a suit you bid, notrump, pass, double or redouble tells partner something about your hand that he didn't already know.  Unless you're deliberately psyching, every bid you make should continue to refine the description of your hand.  This is especially true of non-forced bids, for a forced bid may have to be made on non-ideal cards.

Let's examine the sub-principles one by one.  That there are no undos is self-evident.  It's incontrovertible.  To take an extreme example, partner open 1♣ and you hold ♠KQJ5 ♥5432 ♦Q86 ♣54.  You decide you like spades better than hearts so you bid 1♠.  Partner now rebids 1NT.  If you now bid 2♥, your partner will now "know" that you are 5-4 or 5-5 (or more extreme still) in the major suits.  No matter how you bid from here on, partner will never believe you are 4-4.

"Don't tell your story twice" is what every novice bridge player is told again and again.  Let's say you hold ♠KQJ8752 ♥5 ♦Q6 ♣542, non-vulnerable versus not.  You deal and open 3♠ and LHO bids 4♥, partner passes and RHO passes too.  You now bid 4♠.  You've told the same story twice.  You had a reasonable 3♠ call that pretty much described your hand.  Partner decided not to act over 4♥.  You have no reason at all to bid again.  Partner might have ♠4 ♥QT85 ♦A875 ♣K976.  Between you, you have a likely one spade, two or even three hearts, one or two diamonds and possibly a club on defense.  On offense, you have 6 spades and 1 diamond.  Enough said.

The principle of substantive discretionary bids ("the principle of stuff", for short) is my own rule and I admit that I'm still looking for a pithy name for it.  I've never seen it espoused per se by any expert, but nevertheless, I think it probably is considered to be plain common sense.  It basically says that if you make a non-forced (discretionary) bid in a suit, then you show some values in that suit.  The kind of values you'd like to be led to if partner gets on lead.  So, any time you make a discretionary bid (where pass is a logical alternative) you show "stuff".  Let's say that your hand is ♠Q8752 ♥5 ♦A6 ♣AQJ42, not-vulnerable vs. vulnerable.  Partner deals and passes, your RHO opens 1♦ and you bid 1♠.  LHO makes a negative double and partner passes.  RHO now bids 2♥.  Do you bid 3♣?  It's reasonable, maybe not automatic but generally OK.  If partner does happen to get on lead, you'll welcome a club lead.  But suppose your hand is instead ♠AQJ42 ♥5 ♦A6 ♣Q8752.  The auction goes the same way.  Should you bid 3♣ now?  Some might but I wouldn't.  You barely have any "stuff" in your club suit.  Instead, with this hand, I might bid 2♠ at my first opportunity (although admittedly it's heavy for a jump even opposite a pass).

Occasionally, you will be dealt a very good hand except that your long suit is rather weak.  You simply have too many points to pass.  So an overcall is not truly discretionary because you feel you have to do something.  Partner will expect a better suit, but the overall strength of the hand should help to ameliorate any issue arising.

Let's not get confused with normal constructive bidding here.  Suppose the auction went 1♠ pass 1NT pass.  Everyone on this planet would rebid 2♣, regardless of which of the two hands they hold.  They would simply be "patterning out". Their rebid is not discretionary, especially so if the 1NT was forcing (regardless, it's incumbent upon opener to rebid a suit with such an unbalanced hand). No inference could be made by partner that you have better cards in one black suit versus the other.

The principle of fast arrival is too well known to require any long-winded elaboration from me, but let's just put it in this way: if you have two ways of getting to a particular contract all on your own, the indirect route shows the stronger hand.  Let's take a simple example.  You are dealt ♠AQJ742 ♥5 ♦K6 ♣Q852 and partner opens 1♦.  You bid 1♠.  Partner now bids 1NT showing 12-14 hcp.  You know you want to be in 4♠, but you have two ways to get there: bid 4♠ immediately or go through new minor forcing.  The principle of fast arrival says that if you jump straight to 4♠, you don't expect partner to bid again – he's limited his hand quite narrowly.  But if you bid 2♣ and then over the likely 2♦, 2♥, 2NT or 3♣ rebid you now bid 4♠, you are saying that you would be interested in slam if partner has good working cards and/or a spade fit.   Perhaps you would need to have at least ♠AQJ742 ♥5 ♦K6 ♣A852 to use this route.

Finally, we have the curiously named "curious principle of the dog in the night-time" (dog principle for short).  I admit to naming this one too.  The allusion of course is to Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle's short story "Silver Blaze".  Inspector Gregory asks "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"  Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."  Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."  Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Let's say that your partner opens 1♥ and your right-hand opponent bids 1♠.  You cue-bid 2♠, which is of course forcing to 3♥.  LHO doubles.  Partner passes.  That's to say he does nothing.  But nothing is something in this context.  Partner had the choice of calling 4♥, 3♥, 2NT, 3NT, redouble, or three or four of some minor suit.  But he did none of these things.  His pass is forcing on you to do something (you've already told him that we want to play at least 3♥), but he is leaving the door open for you to do something below the level of 3♥ if you wish, such as to make a game try.  Most probably, partner has no extra distribution but most probably he has extra high-card points.  With neither of these, he would simply bid 3♥ (fast arrival) effectively closing the door to any game tries you might otherwise have made.  Of course, different partnerships might have different agreements, but I think this would be the standard agreement without any discussion.

Now, for an example of the principle in action: Every bid tells a story.  Let's say that you pick up the following hand: ♠AQJ9 ♥754 ♦KJ6 ♣K92.  What you have is a nice balanced 14 count.  You open 1♣ and partner bids 1♦.  RHO now bids 1♥.  You have a bit of a problem.  Should you bid 1♠ (and perhaps suggest at least four clubs), or should you make a support double?  Or fib a bit and bid 1NT?  Or should you pass?  I think the latter is too wimpy.  And I think 1NT is too dishonest.  Let's say that you bid 1♠, and later you show support for diamonds.  You are showing better than a minimum hand (fast arrival).  With, say, ♠KQJ9 ♥754 ♦KJ6 ♣Q92 (in my opinion, not really an opening hand at all playing standard American or 2/1), you would reluctantly perhaps have to make the support double and potentially miss your spade fit (although if partner's hand is good he will check back somehow).

Now, suppose that over our 1♠, partner bids 1NT and RHO bids 2♦.  Do you double now?  If you have the 14 point hand above, you have already described your hand reasonably accurately (partner may expect a fourth club but will realize that you might not have had a perfect 1NT rebid after the heart overcall).  If you double here, you're telling partner that you have a balanced hand with defense in both red suits (you won't be surprised if LHO takes a preference to hearts so you'll want to have some defense there too).  And considerable extra values, given that you would have opened with 1NT if you had a balanced 15-17.  Perhaps this hand: ♠AQJ9 ♥KJ4 ♦KJ6 ♣K92.

Thus, if the auction goes as described, partner will really expect you to have a rather good defensive hand.  If he should chance to double 2♥ with ♠T2 ♥AT2 ♦QT84 ♣T765 (maybe he shouldn't!), he's going to be awfully disappointed if you show up with ♠KQJ9 ♥754 ♦KJ6 ♣Q92.

Another example comes from a common situation:  ♠KQT92 ♥74 ♦KJ6 ♣K92.  You open 1♠, LHO bids 2♥, partner passes, RHO comes in with 2♠.  Do you double?  Of course not!  Partner already knows you have five spades (assuming you're playing 5-card majors) and is planning to lead them whatever you do.  On this occasion, it's true that you have nice ones.  But double here shows extras.  Possibly just a sixth spade, but generally speaking you show more than a minimum opening.

So, take care with those frivolous bids or doubles that "can't possibly come to any harm".  You might get away with it when the next player bids something, but partner may take some later action in the fond illusion that you actually had something for your earlier action.