[foobar]

---

Vul. vs. not, with partner dealing you hold the above hand and the bidding proceeds:

1♥ - (P) - 1♠ - (2N) - 4♣* - (5♦)

Pard's 4♣ bid showed great ♠ support and shortness in ♣s (surprise).

Muti-part question:

1) Has the 4♣ bid created a forcing pass situation?
2) What's your bid?
3) Would you bid differently if your pard's hand was limited to 15 points max?
4) Would you bid differently if the vulnerability was different?

[TimG]

foobar, on 2010-November-20, 18:07, said:

2) What's your bid?

I can't pass? I think that would be my choice. I will sit for a double, so I don't have to worry about any pass and pull implications.

[straube]

I think this is a matter of partnership agreement. The relevant notes pertaining to this partnership are...

"Supporting partner's suit (even to game) never creates a force. Robson and Segal suggest that when unfavorable, jumps to game create a force. 1S (2C) 4S and 1S (2D) 4H would create forces when unfavorable. Note that 1S (4H) 4S would never create a force."

This here pertains because it is unfavorable vulnerability and partner has effectively jumped to game by bidding 4C. At unfavorable vulnerability, it is not necessarily our hand, but we need agreements to know what to do over sacrifices. A jump to game (or force to game) at unfavorable usually means anyway that bidder thinks game is a likely make. 4C here was a thoughtful bid which was designed to assist partner (me) determine what to do over a 5D call.

Foobar argues that the notes don't pertain to opener's jump to game and that opener cannot create a forcing situation. I think this would be a bad agreement. Just because opener has a limited hand (10-15) doesn't mean that he can't be thinking about competing to the 5-level....and that's what setting up a force is all about...involving partner in whether to bid on or not.

How could Foobar have avoided the force? Only by inviting or competing. He could bid 3D (which since we play unusual vs unusual ought to suggest an invitation in spades) or 3S which ought to be competing.

After a force, I think dbl of 5D is clear by my hand. True, I have a fifth spade, but I have all of 1 hcp in partner's suits.

[gwnn]

forcing pass yes
do I use it no
do I use my red card yes

[MrAce]

foobar, on 2010-November-20, 18:07, said:

---

Vul. vs. not, with partner dealing you hold the above hand and the bidding proceeds:

1♥ - (P) - 1♠ - (2N) - 4♣* - (5♦)

Pard's 4♣ bid showed great ♠ support and shortness in ♣s (surprise).

Muti-part question:

1) Has the 4♣ bid created a forcing pass situation?
2) What's your bid?
3) Would you bid differently if your pard's hand was limited to 15 points max?
4) Would you bid differently if the vulnerability was different?

1-Yes
2-DBL
3-No
4-NO

[rhm]

foobar, on 2010-November-20, 18:07, said:

Vul. vs. not, with partner dealing you hold the above hand and the bidding proceeds:

1♥ - (P) - 1♠ - (2N) - 4♣* - (5♦)

Pard's 4♣ bid showed great ♠ support and shortness in ♣s (surprise).

Muti-part question:

1) Has the 4♣ bid created a forcing pass situation?

Of course and I play few scenarios as forcing passes!
For me the meaning of 4 ♣ has not changed by the intervention. Partner has invited slam.

Quote

2) What's your bid?

Double. Partner is of course allowed to overrule. Double does not show ♦. More likely it shows values in ♣ and a minimum hand with doubts that 5 ♠ is going to make.

Quote

3) Would you bid differently if your pard's hand was limited to 15 points max?

No. Even more doubts that 5♠ is a decent contract

Quote

4) Would you bid differently if the vulnerability was different?

White against red I would consider Pass not forcing, since opponents are unlikely to be sacrificing.
I probably still double, since I do not want to encourage 5♠, but it is close.

My guess is that 5♦ makes and 5 ♠ would have been one down. Partner should have overruled but many do not understand these scenarios.
Hard luck.

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

1: yes
2: Dble
3: It is not possible to hold 15 hcp
4: No

[OleBerg]

1) Yes under my agreements*, and I would expect it to be forcing with any pick-up-expert partner. If my partner wanted to have an agreement that it was non-forcing, ok with me.

2) Double.

3) I'd still double, but I'd be even more inclined to have a non-forcing agreement. (Not only is partners values limited, but he also has more freedom to bid high with distribution/playing-strength, with few hcp.)

4) No.

* We have invitational values, and they bid at the 5-level. (Yes, I know we have bid game, but in competitive sequences we are allowed to do that with invitational values. Maybe we should coin a term for that.)

[Hanoi5]

1) I'd say it's forcing. I wonder what's the difference with 4♦ though.
2) I'm torn between Pass or Double. I'm gonna pass and see what partner does.
3) Maybe. If partner has 15 or less then they might even make so I'd Pass.
4) Same Vul or WvsR I guess I'd double.