On May 6, 6:11 pm, David Babcock <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> There have been threads here about whether pass-then-pull should be a
> strong action (as in BWS) or a weak action.
>
> There is lately a version of the forcing pass in which pass tells
> partner to double if he would have passed a penalty double and double
> shows a more offensive hand but not enough to bid at the next level.
> Does anyone have any thoughts on pass-then-pull in this setting, as
> compared with the traditional forcing-pass structure? Is there any
> literature on this?
>
> David
That is the so called "pass-double inversion" invented, I believe by
Meckstroth and Rodwell.
No matter which option a partner****p chooses - pass then pull is
weaker, or pass then pull is stronger - there will always be a
potential ethical problem in planned auctions if partner fails to co-
operate by bidding in tempo in forcing pass sequences.
I myself think that it is probably easier to explain 'pass then pull'
as showing a slam try in a committee just because the hand is
stronger, not weaker.
On the other hand, I speculate, with no evidence before me, whether in
these types of forcing pass situations it might not be better to
define bid, pass, and double as:
bid: much higher ODR than might be expected from this sequence
pass = ODR about equal
double = much lower ODR than might be expected
i.e., the bids separate out type of hand instead of strength of hand.
Then, slam tries are made the old-fa****oned Lawrence way: bid it and
try to make it.
Henrysun909
|
