From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Restricting Conventions
Date: 3 Oct 1992 15:25:20 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: bovina.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1akskhINNgee@gap.caltech.edu> bidboxes for leftys and 'pls hesitate' discussion writes:

[Discussion of "surprise" methods]

>i think surprise should be defined somewhat differently...
>The difficulty in defending forcing pass arises because one does not
>have any experience against a similar system (primarily this expresses
>itself in the lack of the most useful bid, double, after p!)
>To me, surprise is something that one could not be reasonably expected to  
>defend after discussing for, say, 1 minute, what to do (an amount of time  
>available between rounds of a pairs event, proveided you play at a  
>reasonable pace)

>Personally, at imps, i would defend fp with crash, and at matchpoints i  
>would use a variable pass system i have developed for that purpose, but it  
>will never come up...

>curt

I think this is a good example of the difficulty in defending
against unfamiliar methods.

In the past couple of years I have given quite a lot of thought
to the advantages and disadvantages of FP systems and how to
defend against them.  I think curt is quite right that the
forcing pass itself can be defended like any other forcing
opening bid.  Usual methods include immediate interference with
weak hands and passing with stronger ones.  A forcing pass is
little different from a forcing 1C, especially if the 1C includes
some hands that aren't awfully strong.  I hope both partners
assume the same "crash" bids, though, presumably 1C, 1D, and 1H.

The problem I see arises from trying to bid your games and slams
accurately after an opponent has opened the bidding with either
a rather weak opening bid or a meaningless very weak call (called
a "fert" for "fertilizer", a euphemism).  I can almost guarantee 
your usual defensive bidding methods aren't up to it.  And 
constructive methods after a 1D fert are not the same as after a 
1H or 1S fert.  *This* is the destructiveness of FP systems, not 
the forcing pass itself.

Over a 1D fert you can play a strong club system.  Second hand
passes with either a strong club opening or a hand too weak for
a call.  Double shows a normal 1D opener (and partner can pass
for penalties, of course), and higher bids are normal.  4th hand
doubles with a 1D response, otherwise everything is as if partner
had opened a forcing club.  All very nice, until your opponents
announce that *their* fert is 1H.  What now?

None of this is entirely obvious on first hearing of forcing
pass systems.  Normal defensive bidding methods tend to lump
strong hands into cuebids because weaker hands are much more
frequent, and slam when the opponents open the bidding is a 
*very* rare occurence.  Things are very different when the
opening bid shows 0-7 HCP and any distribution.

I personally think there is no reason anyone should have to deal
with such a thing in a pairs game.  I think working out good
defenses to particular forcing pass systems sounds like great
fun for a long match, but there's certainly room for disagreement.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)