[m1cha]

It seems to me that there is a disagreement on how often these passes are successful or not. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he may want to stick with them.

I suggest you do what ggwhiz suggested: put a bottle of wine on it or a bar of chocolate. He gives you if it costs an IMP, you give him if it wins an IMP. This will create a multiple win-win situation:

1. You either win the contract or you win a present.
2. After a few months you will be able to remember who bought how many presents.
3. You can analyse the situations and you will both learn from it (and if he learns more than you, that's just find with you, I guess).
4. In the end perhaps you may both feel fine - you because you managed to reduce these passes by 85 % and he because he keeps the liberty of passing very occasionally (and with better judgmement than now).

[barmar]

m1cha, on 2016-November-05, 18:18, said:

It seems to me that there is a disagreement on how often these passes are successful or not. Otherwise I cannot imagine why he may want to stick with them.

I suspect this is true of most disagreements about bidding style. And the reason they persist is selective memory biased by preferences.

I have an occasional partner who really likes to make Michaels and Unusual 2NT bids with 5-4 in his suits, because he likes to be able to get into the auction. I don't like it when he does this, because I never know how high to compete.

He mostly remembers the times that it works, because they confirm his belief. I notice the times that we overbid and got punished because I played for him to have the traditional shape. I could stop assuming that, but then when he does have 5-5 or better, and I should have competed, we'll miss out. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

[helene_t]

nige1, on 2016-November-02, 14:18, said:

An agreement to pass a call that is forcing by agreement, is an oxymoron.

Yes.

Moreover, passing a forcing bid is ethically problematic. Opps (or TD) could suspect that you are not disclosing your agreements correctly, that you are fielding a misbid (somehow figured out that partner doesn't have the values for his forcing bid) or that you have UI which makes passing the forcing bid attractive.

I suppose you can pass a forcing bid if you have psyched yourself or if opps' manerisms limit the values partner can have.

Maybe you could argue that if you play some not-so-well-thought-through system you may occasionally run into situations in which you are in a force according to your formal agreements but not according to GBK, and that you can pass in such situations. But then you are not passing a forcing bid, rather you are following the meta-agreement that GBK trumps formal agreements.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2016-November-07, 05:13, said:

Yes.

Moreover, passing a forcing bid is ethically problematic. Opps (or TD) could suspect that you are not disclosing your agreements correctly, that you are fielding a misbid (somehow figured out that partner doesn't have the values for his forcing bid) or that you have UI which makes passing the forcing bid attractive.

I suppose you can pass a forcing bid if you have psyched yourself or if opps' manerisms limit the values partner can have.

Maybe you could argue that if you play some not-so-well-thought-through system you may occasionally run into situations in which you are in a force according to your formal agreements but not according to GBK, and that you can pass in such situations. But then you are not passing a forcing bid, rather you are following the meta-agreement that GBK trumps formal agreements.

Mainly this happens when responder did not have sound values for a response.

But if you are sorry you showed the values for a response, it is too late to try and do something about it. That ship has sailed.

At least, that's the way I see it.

[helene_t]

It sounds like this is mostly about auctions like
1M-1NT
3m-pass!

and

1c-1M
reverse-pass!

where responder didn't have enough for the traditional meaning of a response and reasons that since he was allowed to pass the opening he can pass now also.

Maybe "unlimited, and forcing unless partner has a subminimal hand" would be a reasonable description if this is what partner insists on. It should be made clear that opener does not fabricate a 3NT rebid or such out of fear that a reverse or jump shift will be passed - opener just bids according to system, and if responder decides to pass it is his responsibility.

This may or may not be a good idea but at least it is not an oxymoron.