[Creeksider]

At a table with many kibbers, the SAYC (not 2/1) bidding went as follows:

P - 1♥ - P - 2♣
P - 2♦ - P - P(!?)

One of the kibbers stated emphatically that the 2♣ bidder was forced to bid again, and that this was so clearly forcing that anyone who does not treat it as forcing should alert that fact. This would be a moot point in 2/1, of course, but the bidders were not playing 2/1 and the question was whether the 2♣ bidder was forced to bid again.

I had never seen this situation described as a forcing bid, and could not find any such indication in the basic texts I have on SAYC (Standard Bidding with SAYC; Bidding in the 21st Century). Was that final pass a clear violation, regardless of what cards the bidder was holding?

From what I can make out, opener would normally expect a second bid from responder, as they have at least 22 points between them (12 to open and 10 to respond at the 2 level), and opener's second bid leaves open the possibility of a combined 25 or more. Yet responder could be looking at a hand that appears unsuitable for no trump. Lacking a major suit fit, the partnership would need something like 29 points for a minor suit game, and that may seem implausible if responder had a minimum 2♣ bid, given opener's failure to jump on the second bid. In that case, a pass here might seem preferable to the alternatives.

I don't see how one's approach to this bid would be alertable except in the sense that if this is indeed normally considered a forcing situation, and you wish to retain the option to pass based on a judgment call, you would "alert" your partner to this bidding preference prior to play. But what about the underlying premise? Is this a case for the bidding police? Or is responder's pass within the realm of possible options?

[Cromlyn]

As I am struggling to get to grips with the SAYC and what is actually played in the Main Room. I think there is confusion with the 2/1 system which does play this 2♣ bid as absolutely forcing.

This would not be forcing in Precision or Acol either. However, in Acol in particular, things do change and conventions get added on and bids like doubles change out of all recognition!

I will be very interested to see what our experts say on this topic

[paulg]

The ACBL SAYC System Booklet (January 2006) says,

"Responder promises to bid again if he responded with a new suit at the two level unless opener’s rebid is at the game level. This applies when responder is an unpassed hand."

There is an example that says 1S-2C-2D is forcing for one round.

[blackshoe]

2♦ is forcing in SAYC, as Paul says. Nonetheless, while passing it is a violation of partnership agreements, it is not a violation of law or regulation. It would not require that 2♣ or 2♦ be alerted, either, unless by agreement 2♣ does not promise a rebid or 2♦ is not forcing. Of course, if either of those is true, this pair are not playing SAYC.

[wank]

in the real world national bridge authorities decide what's alertable and what's not. almost everywhere 2♣ isn't alertable but 2♦ would be alertable if it's non-forcing by agreement.

of course, it may be forcing by agreement and responder just decided to pass. that would be fine.

in bbo world, there is normally no national authority aside from ACBL tournies, but players are instructed to alert bids they consider unusual. of course normal people would consider a non-forcing 2 diamonds as unusual, but it may be that the player who bid it considers the normal meaning [for bridge players in general, not just his system] for the bid to be non-forcing in which case he did nothing wrong.

many players have no idea how to bid and perforce assume whatever they bid is normal, no matter how bizarre it is to the rest of us.

[helene_t]

Yes, this is clearly forcing, not only to North Americans but to anyone from a strong-notrump culture, i.e. also to continental Europeans who may put SAYC on their profile but are more likely to play something resembling their national flavor of 5-card majors with strong notrump. BTW I think most (all?) contributors to the English Bridge magazine recommend playing it as forcing in English Acol, too.

If you have the agreement that 2♦ is non-forcing, it is best to alert 2♦ when you are playing online. I wouldn't alert it in real life, though. As for the 2♣ bid I think it is prudent to alert it if it can be substantially lighter than what most strong-notrump players would expect (say it could be 8 points), but whether it promises a rebid or not does not affect the alertability of it IMO.

[gwnn]

Yes please, call the cops.

[aguahombre]

wank, on 2011-February-15, 09:44, said:

many players have no idea how to bid and perforce assume whatever they bid is normal, no matter how bizarre it is to the rest of us.

Herein lies the problem. There is no way a pair unfamiliar with "normal" can know to alert the abnormal. I think we just have to accept this when playing against inexperienced opponents. Strong pairs who come from a different jurisdiction have some obligation to learn the disclosure rules of the RA, but it might be difficult for a decent pair who are just plain old-fashioned and re-emerging into bridge. They might (ACBL) accidentally alert, say neg. doubles, until they catch on. But if they don't play certain doubles as takeout, how would they know that the mainstream does?

The other problem is knowing who the inexperienced opponents are, and which of them might be unaware that their style is not mainstream.

[Creeksider]

Thanks for the responses. It's interesting that a basic rule that makes its way into a document as brief as the SAYC system booklet would go unmentioned in books on SAYC bidding, including the one in the ACBL series. I guess it's time for moi to study the SAYC system booklet more thoroughly, and not assume I'll get the full story from books about the system.

FWIW, responder was clearly a knowledgeable player, and this was not a case involving partnership agreement on this point. It seems likely that he looked at his hand and concluded that continued bidding was more likely to place the partnership in an unplayable contract than it was to produce a makeable game. As blackshoe points out, in the absence of partnership agreement on this point it is within the rules of the game to pass a forcing bid based on this type of judgment, although one does so at his peril.

As for the result, declarer made 2♦ -- with four overtricks, making his partner's bid look very bad indeed. Declarer, not known for being gentle with malfeasant partners, voiced no complaint, however, and that was probably fair. There was no way to improve the contract: 3NT was not makeable, and 5♦ (much less 6) was not biddable.

[mr1303]

Even in stone age Acol, this is definitely 100% forcing.

[Cromlyn]

'Even in stone age Acol, this is definitely 100% forcing.' posted by mr1303

I have to disagree with mr1303 and I quote from 'All About Acol' by Cohen and Lederer (many Acol player's 'bible') where on page 113 it gives an example of a hand which is opened 1H and goes on to state 'a simple rebid of 2♦ over 2♣ could be passed'

[jh51]

aguahombre, on 2011-February-15, 11:33, said:

Strong pairs who come from a different jurisdiction have some obligation to learn the disclosure rules of the RA, but it might be difficult for a decent pair who are just plain old-fashioned and re-emerging into bridge. They might (ACBL) accidentally alert, say neg. doubles, until they catch on.

Sounds like me a couple of years ago. I stopped playing duplicate for a couple of decades and when I started playing again, things had changed. I "knew" the new ACBL alert regulations, but under pressure I was known to alert negative doubles and even announcable transfers.

[jh51]

Partners are known to do odd things.

Once a partner passed in this auction:
1♣-P-1♥-P
2♦-P-P-P
I played the heck out of the contract in a 3-2 fit. Alas, 6♣ was on.

Same partner once passed another forcing bid and had the director called on us. (2♥-P-2♠-All pass) In ACBL land, my bid is alertable if not forcing, so they were questioning whether this was a failure to alert. It was not, as I was as suprised as they when partner passed.

Partner has gotten better, or at least I think she has.

[FrancesHinden]

mr1303, on 2011-February-17, 02:19, said:

Even in stone age Acol, this is definitely 100% forcing.

It's played as forcing by most Acol players now, but it never used to be (if opener had a good hand, he would jump)

[Creeksider]

We all understand that players will sometimes out of ignorance pass when forced to bid. The more interesting question is whether someone may knowingly pass when the agreed system requires a bid.

One situation where you might want to do this is when you realize you made an error in a previous bid. You miscounted your points and made a bid that heads your partnership toward an unmakeable contract. The only was to get off that train without further damage is to pass when forced to bid.

That wasn't the case in the deal that prompted this discussion. It was reasonably clear that responder (an expert player) concluded that a further bid was unwise even though forced. Setting aside the question whether this could ever be a sound judgment, is it in any way improper? Would opponents have reason to complain, supposing for example that defenders were unable to defeat the contract, but would have been able to defeat the contract that would have resulted if defender had not passed?

Here's what I found relevant to this topic in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge:

A player may deviate from his side’s announced
understandings always, provided that his partner
has no more reason to be aware of the deviation
than have the opponents.

The Laws go on to point out that repeated deviations may lead to partnership understandings, which must be disclosed.

In the situation I described, responder's pass appeared to be a knowing deviation from announced (or presumed) understandings. Opener had no reason to be aware of the deviation, either by agreement or by experience with responder (not his usual partner). It appears to me that the action was legally correct with no alert required.

[Mbodell]

Creeksider, on 2011-February-20, 12:00, said:

We all understand that players will sometimes out of ignorance pass when forced to bid. The more interesting question is whether someone may knowingly pass when the agreed system requires a bid.

Just yesterday my partner passed a forcing pass on this auction:

1♣(strong and we've agreed forcing through 1nt) - (1♥) - P (either very bad or trap pass, but forcing through 1nt) - P
P!

Partner had a minimum 16 and 6 hearts and decided to pass. Which is rational, but the first time in a long partnership that has happened. I was surprised. Partner had not forgotten he alerted my pass and when asked included in his description that it was forcing.

[aguahombre]

Mbodell, on 2011-February-20, 14:27, said:

Just yesterday my partner passed a forcing pass on this auction:

1♣(strong and we've agreed forcing through 1nt) - (1♥) - P (either very bad or trap pass, but forcing through 1nt) - P
P!

Partner had a minimum 16 and 6 hearts and decided to pass. Which is rational, but the first time in a long partnership that has happened. I was surprised. Partner had not forgotten he alerted my pass and when asked included in his description that it was forcing.

Absolutely. In my younger days playing CC Wei-style Precision, I opened 3rd chair 1♣ with a bad 16 which included 5 diamonds. Pard responded 1♦, and since the strong alternatives for that response were not possible (his original pass), and since LHO was already squirming and I didn't like her much anyway, I passed.

The TD got a good laugh, and went away --- after which LHO shot herself in the foot, and was fuming.

[ggwhiz]

Creeksider, on 2011-February-20, 12:00, said:

We all understand that players will sometimes out of ignorance pass when forced to bid. The more interesting question is whether someone may knowingly pass when the agreed system requires a bid.

I had the following hand a couple of months ago.

Qxxxx, -, - ,QTxxxxxx

Partner opened 1♥, I responded 1♠ and pard jumped to 3♦, 100% game force as agreed. I opened the door a crack, passed and found out exactly how fast BBO is when partner screamed ARRRGH!

Pard was 2-5-5-1 with a hand so good, we only went down 2. The spades split 6-0 off-side so it scored well and I would do it again. I believe I'm allowed to take such a shot in the dark as it also comes with great risk.

[MrAce]

Creeksider, on 2011-February-15, 09:19, said:

At a table with many kibbers, the SAYC (not 2/1) bidding went as follows:

P - 1♥ - P - 2♣
P - 2♦ - P - P(!?)

One of the kibbers stated emphatically that the 2♣ bidder was forced to bid again, and that this was so clearly forcing that anyone who does not treat it as forcing should alert that fact. This would be a moot point in 2/1, of course, but the bidders were not playing 2/1 and the question was whether the 2♣ bidder was forced to bid again.

This 2♦ is forcing, and it has nothing to do with SAYC or 2/1 either. However, everyone is allowed to pass any forcing bid, as long as it is not controlled by pdship agreements. I have seen worldclass players, passing their pd's strong artificial 2♣ opening at matchpoints when they needed a top score, with 6-7 ♣ and 0 hcps. For example REVERSE is a forcing bid too, i also read and saw worldclass top famous experts passing it, and advocating it by saying " very rare but if you didnt have your first response, u can pass if u believe u improved the contract"

Basically, as long as it is not a controlled action, and the passer is basically gambling, there is not much Bridge Cops can do about it. Still calling the cops is good idea, to get it on record, so cops keep an eye on them closely for future

[Creeksider]

MrAce, on 2011-February-22, 03:12, said:

Still calling the cops is good idea, to get it on record, so cops keep an eye on them closely for future

I know what would happen if I did that: on the very next deal I would find myself holding a weird hand that made me want to do the same thing. I can just imagine the scene that would follow.