BBO Discussion Forums: Alerting a Pass because it is NOT forcing?! - BBO Discussion Forums

Last night, at our local tournament, I got a strange complaint from my opponents at the end of the auction. Here is the situation:



The 1♦ opening is standard, promising 4+ diamonds;
My (East) 1♥ is a transfer overcall, showing spades and unlimited (upwardly) strength;
South's Double shows either 8+ hcp with 4 hearts or any 10+ hcp hand.

After having asked North whether South promises hearts with his Double or not, I decided to pass. South was disappointed, saying that I should have alerted my partner's Pass, precisely because it was not forcing. To my mind, the fact that West's Pass is not forcing is a matter of logics, not agreement. South intervention gave West the option of passing (which otherwise he would not have had, overcaller being unlimited, so I inferred that West didn't have spade support. Yes, he could have been without heart support too, but, given the auction, I judged that the probabilities were in favor of staying there, at level one. Now, my parter and I didn't discuss this particular sequence, but South contention was that they, i.e. the opponents, are anyway entitled to know whether they'll have another chance to speak.

This had been a friendly discussion among us, but I would anyway like to know if I should alert such passes in the future - without feeling silly while explaining that my pard's Pass is not forcing

Thank you for any enlightening comment.

I have no idea what the "forcing" or "not forcing" has to do with this, as this is not a sequence that is normal, where one meaning or the other would be deemed "standard." Hence, alerts seem somewhat silly.

That said, I am more concerned as to whether passing shows something. If passing shows hearts, then it seems like a conventional "advance," sort of. Maybe redouble shows heart intolerance? Not sure what is going on. But, if passing shows hearts, then MAYBE it should be alerted.

If passing shows merely heart tolerance, that seems to be context logic, not conventional.

For example, if passing promised a 5-card heart suit, that's one thing. If pass could mean xxx or better, that's another thing.

The pass apparently conveys the information that West did not want to do something else. That is what my partner's passes show as well. I will not start alerting a pass and then explaining that it shows a desire not to bid.

Forcing passes at the 1-level are beyond my comprehension, so I am having trouble seeing what the problem is.

Actually there is one pass at the one-level which I understand most partners would not let stand, but we do not use that, either.

One has to alert a pass of a doubled transfer bid (eg 1NT-(p)-2H (spades)-(X)-p*) if it denies 3-card support for the suit transferred into. Is this not similar - i.e. if it is your system agreement that pass of a doubled transfer overcall denies (3-card, say) support, then it should be alerted?

ahydra

avoscill, on 2011-September-28, 11:42, said:

I'm no expert on alert regulations, but pass conveying a desire to play there (and hence showing some hearts) is one of the more natural possible meanings. Even if pass was just "no other bid," you're allowed to use your judgement to pass 1H doubled. From your description, it sounds like the latter is the case: you didn't really know what partner held, but figured logically that pass should be a good shot.

Actually, I think maybe if partner's pass were explicitly forcing, this might be good to alert. Maybe not, but it seems closer to a forcing pass being alertable than non-forcing pass in this auction.

aguahombre, on 2011-September-28, 13:32, said:

Not so relevant here, but opener's pass in the auction 1C X XX 1D; P looks forcing to me.

aguahombre, on 2011-September-28, 13:32, said:

This cracked me up.

"What does your partner's pass mean?"
"It shows a disinterest in bidding."
"Like, he has nothing to show?"
"No, he's perhaps bored, or perhaps he is mad at me."
"What would he do if he did have a desire to bid but nothing to bid?"
"He would redouble. That says that he wants to bid but has no bid available."
"Does the redouble show anything, like values?"
No. It just says he wants to bid. Maybe he has been passing too many times and is upset with that. Maybe he thinks the auction would be more fun if he were to bid but cannot bid because I would yell at him, so he just wants me to know that he wants to bid anyway but is being polite by not bidding."
"Well, does a call also show that he wants to bid?"
"No -- we play that as two-way. He either wants to bid and thinks he can get away with feeding that desire OR he desperately does not want to bid but feels compelled to do so anyway."

Since alert regulations vary from place to place, it would help to know the jurisdiction under which this occurred.

blackshoe, on 2011-September-28, 15:03, said:

The full hand would be of some interest also.

Assuming conventional passes are alertable in your jurisdiction, I think pass would only be alertable if you had specific agreements about what redbl, 1♠, 1NT and 2♠ mean which give rise to a narrower meaning that can be inferred from the pass other than "doesn't have anything to say at this point". I find it a little bit surprising that a pair would choose to play transfer overcalls but not have any agreements about the continuations after what must be a fairly common occurence of the transfer bid being doubled.

It seems to me that pass was natural suggesting that the player has no wish to bid anything else. While we cannot say for certain whether it was alertable without knowing the jurisdiction, I would be surprised to find it was alertable.

The opponents seem to feel that they expected pass to be forcing. That is an artificial agreement. Again, we cannot say for certain whether that would be alertable without knowing the jurisdiction, but I would be surprised to find that was not alertable.

I think the opponents were naive.

avoscill, on 2011-September-28, 11:42, said:

Which means "no agreement" unless there are analogous sequences which you have discussed.

avoscill, on 2011-September-28, 11:42, said:

That is sort of the case in some jurisdicitons where you are required to alert calls which may be forcing or non-forcing in a manner that your opponents are unlikely to expect.

avoscill, on 2011-September-28, 11:42, said:

This seems like the inverse of the issue in the thread about pass forcing a redouble. But in that case, the pass was alerted, and the question was about how forcing it actually is.

In this case, the opponents think they're entitled to assume that the pass is forcing, even though it wasn't alerted. Isn't "willingness to play in the doubled contract" the normal meaning of passing a double?

barmar, on 2011-September-28, 20:30, said:

I gave up trying to decide "normal", but that is what it usually means to us.

We play in Croatia, and here is the full deal (I don' remember exactly the small cards):

mrdct, on 2011-September-28, 17:25, said:

This is true, but we rely on the fact that advancing transfer overcalls should not be, in principle, different that dealing with the natural ones. Unfortunately, whatever system you play, your partner can always come up with a different logic then yours. For example, I would never interpret any West call as saying something about hearts, since they were bid artificially by East, but evidently different views are possible.

At least my partner and me have now discussed this sequence, with the help of this Forum.

semeai, on 2011-September-28, 13:47, said:

I agree that following the dealer's pass here the redoubler is extremely unlikely to pass (assuming his RHO also passes), simply because he knows his side have the balance of the strength, and the dealer no doubt selected his pass with that expectation. But that is not the same thing as saying that pass is forcing, especially if we expect "forcing" to mean "forcing from strength". All the pass means is "nothing more to tell you partner, I know that you have another bid". Of course it does not mean "I want to defend 1D undoubled", but then many unalerted passes in competition do not mean "I want to defend what my RHO just bid".