[straube]

1H (1N) dbl P
P (2D) P

is pass forcing? Are we committed to take the bid or double for penalties or can the opponents sometimes escape?

My thought would be that we are in a force through some level of bidding but not thereafter. For example, we ought not let the opponents play 2D but might let them play 3D undoubled.

1H (1N) dbl (2D)
P (3D) P P ?

seems like this should not be forcing.

What do others think?

[FrancesHinden]

We play pass as forcing at the 2-level, not at the 3-level (we also play double as take-out)

[PhantomSac]

I play pass not forcing ever and Xs are t/o

[Cyberyeti]

We have the arrangement that whenever we hit 1N for pens, we won't sit 2m undoubled so passes are forcing until the bidding moves up such that the doubled contract would be a game.

[PhilKing]

I've wrestled with this problem for a long time. I think Frances and Justin's agreements are both absolutely fine, and are not particularly better or worse than mine in isolation, but I think I mine is better as a meta-solution.

Play double as forcing up to 2 of our "suit" and non-forcing if higher. Where pass is forcing, play double for penalties (but sticking to take-out is fine). The point is, say it goes 1♥-1NT-X-2C-?, if my pass is not forcing, I am not exactly going to be happy on a range of hands. And it hardly seems likely that a forcing pass will get us in trouble.

Contrast this with the auction 1NT(weak)-X-2m-p, which quite a lot of partnerships play as forcing. This is absurd for a couple of big reasons. Firstly, we often don't have the balance, and secondly, they are frequently bidding a short suit and planning an escape. To counter both strategies a non-forcing pass is mandatory, imo.

In the auction where they raise to 3♦, pass should definitely be non-forcing and double for take-out. Say opener is 4513, who knows what kind of result you can hit by doubling. But as long as you now what double means, you should be on firm ground.

[lycier]

Responder's double only shows 9+hcp,after 2♦,responder's pass also shows his hand without exact next bid and deny 4-card ♦ holding since the second double of responder often shows penalty with 4-card ♦ .
So I think if responder's pass often can be regarded as semi-forcing, double by opener should be cooperative.