[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Nov 9 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

If its non-forcing, it cannot be "forward-going" and if its "forward-going", it cannot be non-forcing. If you try and play it this way, you will practically always end up either one level too low or one level too high (and usually the latter).

It is better served to play it as forcing, imo, to either 5S (or higher) or 6C.

Huh. Weird terminology.

I'm used to "Not forward going" and "Intended as signoff" as equivalents, and
"Forward going" and "Invitational in multiple strains" as synonymous.

Obviously, a bid can be invitational and non-forcing.

[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Nov 9 2007, 04:50 PM, said:

Then you should learn a new book. Really how can you be so stubborn, "forward-going" means what the majority (with experts given more weight) of bridge players thinks it means.

And I suppose the emperor really did have clothes on?

[han]

I also think that forward-going is usually used as constructive. Maybe somewhat better than constructive, Frances's list seems to be in the exactly correct order.

[mike777]

Natural, I expect partner to often pass but he is allowed to bid again. He should assume I have real clubs and more than a dead minimum for this bid.
In any event I expect this to be a pretty rare auction and not the reason why I lose at bridge.

[gwnn]

bid_em_up, you seem to be suggesting that forward going is the same as forcing (or, at least, a subset of forcing). why?

[dburn]

Technically, of course, "forward-going" cannot be applied to any non-forcing call, since if partner passes it we have not gone forward, which contradicts the original description. "Forward-looking" would be better, but it is far too late to expect bridge players (who have already espoused such terms as "semi-forcing") to start speaking English.

One might, I suppose, claim that any bid other than pass is "forward-going", since it has in and of itself moved the auction forward. One would hesitate, for aesthetic reasons only, to apply the description "forward-going" to the last bid in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♥ (transfer)-2♠, but if you are going to use meaningless terminology, you must accustom yourself to thinking meaningless thoughts.

The whimsical notion has also been introduced that in the contested auction Pass-4♦-4♠-Pass, 5♣ should show "five-level safety". Given that

♠AJ109xxx ♥x ♦Qx ♣Kxx

is a 4♠ overcall of a 4♦ opening, it is not easy to construct a passed hand that will be safe at the five level.

[han]

Very enlightening, although I believe that we are not a passed hand in this thread http://forums.bridge...showtopic=22194. What do you think 5C is?

[dburn]

I believe that 5C expresses the opinion that, all in all, the best I can do to maximise our side's chances of obtaining a good result on the current deal is to offer to take eleven tricks with clubs as trumps. After all, that is what the majority of 5C bids mean without prior agreement to the contrary.

Partner may have a contrary view that he is at liberty to express - as Frances says, if he believes that if I think I can take eleven tricks, I can in fact take twelve or thirteen, he may act accordingly.

Other views are possible, and every partnership aiming at expert status should consider them. For example, it is generally thought that if partner opens 4S, it is more useful on grounds of frequency to play 5C as a slam try in spades, not a game try in clubs. Does this apply when partner has overcalled 4D with 4S? Here the "grounds of frequency" argument is unlikely to be of much value, since such sequences are not very frequent at all.

But a good partnership might at least have the basic agreement that all undiscussed bids are natural if they can be natural. That way, at least it will be clear to the West on the actual hand that he ought to try 5S if anything, and not 5C.

Of course, if North opens 3H, East bids 4D, South passes and West bids 4NT, that can be natural. Should it be? Maybe 4H should be Blackwood...

These facts should all be noted down
And ruminated on
By every boy in Oxford town
Who wants to be a Don.

[bid_em_up]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 9 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

how about this:

forcing
rarely passed
highly invitational
invitational
forward-going
constructive
non-forcing
sign-off

these are distinguished by the % of the time that partner passes, ranging from 0% to 100%-unless-he-has-missorted-his-hand-totally

Sure, this sounds reasonable....would you mind actually assigning some approximate percentages to each breakdown/category that you list?

[jdonn]

dburn, on Nov 9 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

These facts should all be noted down
And ruminated on
By every boy in Oxford town
Who wants to be a Don.

That rhyme brought a tear to my eye. Especially the happy ending.

[helene_t]

bid_em_up, on Nov 10 2007, 11:17 AM, said:

Sure, this sounds reasonable....would you mind actually assigning some approximate percentages to each breakdown/category that you list?

When I say forward-going I'm thinking of p bidding on with something like 50% of hands. Could be 30%, could be 70%. For the 30% case, "mildly positive" may be a more accurate description. For 70%, "invitational" may be more accurate.

In this particular case, I think it's (way) below 50%. So maybe "mildly positive" would be more accurate.

However, I have only one way of showing clubs without comiting to slam (and even if I want to commit to slam, I have probably no way of distinguishing between clubs-only and clubs-with-spade-tolerance, or even 6-4 clubs/diamonds). So I will bid 5♣ on a wide range of hands, and p will sometimes guess wrong. Of course I will not bid 5♣ on garbage, and I will try to avoid it on slambound hands, but this is not a perfect World. Therefore I prefer the vague term "forward-going".

[MickyB]

Clearly natural.

(3♦)-4♠-(P)-5♣ is more interesting IMO.

[han]

I'd say that that auction is clearly a cuebid Mike, just like after a 4S opener.

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Nov 10 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

I'd say that that auction is clearly a cuebid Mike, just like after a 4S opener.

Agree.

As to the OP I think 5♣ should be natural and a suggestion to play. You expect to make opposite a normal 4♠ overcall; thus there are quite a few hands where partner will bid on.

You won't bid 5♣ with a weak hand and a long suit with no support for partner where you only hope to go less down - with that hand you pass 4♠. Since RHO didn't double it's quite possible partner will do better than you expect.