[32519]

This thread, now 9 years old, has been deliberately resurrected to find out if more insight has been gained regarding the pros and cons of Negative Free Bids. Kindly share with the rest of the forum members your experiences with it during these intervening years. If you gave it up, you must have had a good reason for doing so?

For those interested, here is a link to Negative Free Bids.

[jogs]

Chamaco, on 2004-September-25, 04:29, said:

However, it is also true the other way around:

1♦-(2♣)-?

AQT9x
Qxx
KJxx
x

If you start with a double and they raise to 5 clubs, it will be hard to show both the spades and diamond support.
In this case, not bidding your longer suit result in helping opps to preempt you.
Comments ?


Thanks all !!

This hand is easy. Just bid 3♠. Play jump fits with NFB.
A jump fit by a non passed hand is forcing back to opener's suit.
Can be passed if made by a passed hand, through this should be rare.

[jogs]

Chamaco, on 2004-September-25, 04:29, said:

Question 1
Robson/Segal in their book "Partnership bidding" say they hate NFB but do not enetr details.
Could you specify why do you like/dislike NFB ?

I can't find where Robson/Segal made comments on NFB.

Love NFB for 2♥ and 2♠. For all other freebids use the standard forcing treatment.
The point range for the call depends on the length and quality of the suit.
Roughly 7-12 with a five card suit and roughly 5-10 with a six card suit.

1♦-2♣-?

1. ♠ AQx ♥ K9xxx ♦ xx ♣ QJx

2♥. 12 points. Don't like the quality of this suit. Don't like
only doubleton in partner's suit. QJ of clubs is probably wasted
for offense. This looks like two opening hands will not worth game.

2. ♠ xx ♥ KQT9xx ♦ xxx ♣ xx

2♥. Only 5 points. Still love bidding with this hand.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2014-February-02, 13:50, said:

I can't find where Robson/Segal made comments on NFB.

Page 179:-

Quote

We are not going to get into an argument about ‘negative free bids’ - that is, non-forcing new suit bids over overcalls (with stronger hands going via a take-out double). Suffice it to say, we are sceptical, unless you play four-card majors and a strong no-trump.

[the hog]

"sceptical" :
"Robson/Segal in their book "Partnership bidding" say they hate NFB"
New definition of the word sceptical?

[helene_t]

That is just normal Newspeak, Ron. Like for example a "climate change sceptic" or an "EU sceptic". I suppose NFB is also one of those things you can't be against but only be "sceptical" about.

[jallerton]

Chamaco, on 2004-September-25, 04:29, said:

However, it is also true the other way around:

1♦-(2♣)-?

AQT9x
Qxx
KJxx
x

If you start with a double and they raise to 5 clubs, it will be hard to show both the spades and diamond support.
In this case, not bidding your longer suit result in helping opps to preempt you.
Comments ?

jogs, on 2014-January-31, 19:43, said:

This hand is easy. Just bid 3♠. Play jump fits with NFB.
A jump fit by a non passed hand is forcing back to opener's suit.
Can be passed if made by a passed hand, through this should be rare.

It can't be that easy if it took you more than nine years to come up with a solution!

In fact, I don't agree with your solution. Whilst it's nice to have fit jumps available (and I do play 3♠ as fit when 2♠ is forcing), there's a more important meaning for 3♠ here. When 2♠ is non-forcing, 3♠ (or a 3♥ transfer to 3♠) should show a game-forcing single-suiter to take some of the strain away from double.

[cherdano]

jallerton, on 2014-February-07, 12:51, said:

It can't be that easy if it took you more than nine years to come up with a solution!

Post of the decade.

[jogs]

jallerton, on 2014-February-07, 12:51, said:

It can't be that easy if it took you more than nine years to come up with a solution!

In fact, I don't agree with your solution. Whilst it's nice to have fit jumps available (and I do play 3♠ as fit when 2♠ is forcing), there's a more important meaning for 3♠ here. When 2♠ is non-forcing, 3♠ (or a 3♥ transfer to 3♠) should show a game-forcing single-suiter to take some of the strain away from double.

Didn't take 9 years to find the solution. Ed Manfield suggested this treatment in 1977. Took 9 years to find this thread.

[rhm]

Chamaco, on 2004-September-25, 04:29, said:

Question 1
Robson/Segal in their book "Partnership bidding" say they hate NFB but do not enetr details.
Could you specify why do you like/dislike NFB ?

I like to play NFB, if the new suit bid is at the two level.
A sensible alternative is to play 2♥/2♠ as NFB and nothing else

Quote

Question 2
(my viewpoint)
A friend of mine said that it is better to show directly your suit when u are weak rather than when you are strong and can afford rebidding later, because this is more disruptive againt opps.

However, it is also true the other way around:

1♦-(2♣)-?

AQT9x
Qxx
KJxx
x

If you start with a double and they raise to 5 clubs, it will be hard to show both the spades and diamond support.
In this case, not bidding your longer suit result in helping opps to preempt you.
Comments ?

This is the heart of the matter, but bringing this argument up against NFB is very lopsided.
When are opponents more likely to preempt you effectively and what is the greater danger?

1) When your side has game forcing HCP values and opponents take an advanced sacrifice?
Since opponents are outgunned at the HCP department, they will need a huge fit. Consequence you have a good fit somewhere.
Note this often helps you to judge your slam potential when you get the information that your partner is short in opponents suit.

When you play NFB you should play jump shifts to the three level as strong one suiters.
Now let us assume you hold your example hand.

1♦-(2♣)-?

AQT9x
Qxx
KJxx
x

If a preempt occurs to 5♣ (unlikely) you know they have a good fit.
You have a choice between 5♦ and 5♠ and DBL.

I probably settle for 5♦ and partner will know I must have something in the majors, because I did not start with 3♣, but I can not have a very long or strong major suit, else I would have jumped there.
I can not be weak either as I would have preempted immediately.

2) The HCP strength between both sides is more balanced but opponents have found their fit first?

In case 1) you can afford to take a decision at a high level.
In case 2) you might bury your fit when you have to negative double with the wrong sort of distribution. This is the type of stuff where a double game swing might go to our opponents.

So I believe it is worse, having no bid with a constructive hand, but which should not force, e.g

Qxx
KJT9x
Kx
xxx

In standard you either have to overbid with 2♥ or you have to double.
Say you double and the bidding continues:

1♦-(2♣)-X-(4♣)-4♠-(X)-?

Good luck to you.
It is much more dangerous to show unspecific distribution when you hold moderate values.

Rainer Herrmann

[kgr]

1♦-(2♣)-?

Here we also use transfer (loosing the natural 2♦):
- 2♦: xfer ♥ (weak or GF)
- 2♥: xfer ♠ (weak or GF)
- DBL: Take-out

Other bids we use here:
- 2♠: Weak, 5c♠, 4c♦
- 2NT: very weak with ♦-support
- 3♣: Inv+ with ♦-support
- 3♦: 6-9 with ♦-support
- 3♥/3♠: Invite with 6-card ♥/♠

[Fluffy]

jogs, on 2014-March-16, 18:17, said:

Didn't take 9 years to find the solution. Ed Manfield suggested this treatment in 1977. Took 9 years to find this thread.

Given that Mauro (Chamaco) stopped playing bridge 6 years ago, he will be glad