[jillybean]

Hello Here's a hand from our Sectional.

---

For me, 2♣ is non forcing and 3♣ a fit jump.

For those of you who play NFB, do you also play fit jumps? Are fit jumps usually only played after partner opens a major?
How do you handle this hand?

For those of you who are going to tell me I shouldn't play so much system, thanks. You have a very valid point but I do play a lot
of systems, I enjoy it, it's part of the fun and challenge of the game. Please can we keep this on the topic of NFB and FJ.

[whereagles]

3NT wtp?

[gordontd]

With those agreements it's normal to start with double on game-forcing hands.

[helene_t]

I would prefer to play 3♣ as natural GF. Without a natural GF 3♣ I would have to dbl with a strong hand that couldn't bid 3NT. And then it is probably also right to double with this hand. We can always bid 3NT later.

[broze]

It isn't so much that you are playing too much system, it's that if you don't know what to do one hands like this then you don't really know what your system is.

[broze]

As Gordon says if you are fully on board with NFBs, you start GF hands with a double.

Personally when I have played NFBs I have not played fit jumps (except in some specifically discussed auctions - this not being one of them). I also do not play NFBs in the minors so the only relevant auctions are 1m-(1S)-2H and 1M-(2m)-2oM.

Also if you play them after 1D-(2C) or 1C-(2D)- I suggest you change. A double in this auction is already extremely strained and having to pile every single-suited GF hand in there as well as invitational and competitive hands with one or both four card Majors just so you can stop in 2M will make these auctions very difficult for you.

[jogs]

Only two of a major should be used for NFB. All other non-jump bids in contested auctions are better served as forcing. 3/4 of the suit contracts are played in the majors. You are less likely to buy the contract in the minors and you must bid one level higher.

[akwoo]

Part of playing NFBs is that the negative double can be made without (the) unbid major(s) with a game-forcing hand. So this hand doubles. Over a non-club bid by partner, bidding clubs at the next level shows a game-forcing hand with clubs (and cancels any implications about unbid majors).

[FrancesHinden]

When I play NFBs, I don't play fit jumps as well. So here I would did 3!C natural and game forcing.

[jillybean]

I forgot double can show this type of hand and it seems like we need to look at the wisdom of playing NFB and FJ.

Thanks!

[whereagles]

NFBs leave you with an omnibus double, which is very vulnerable to preemption. When playing natural systems, if stuff gets competitive, responder should strive to bid his hand in one go. NFB violates this principle by dumping all into the dbl, thus requiring several rounds of bidding to clear it up.

It is playable, but can leave you with some hard guesses while giving little in exchange.

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2014-August-31, 11:58, said:

I forgot double can show this type of hand and it seems like we need to look at the wisdom of playing NFB and JS.

Thanks!

I experimented with NFB many years ago and came to the realization that they are great for partscore competition but disastrous for accurate slam bidding and questionable for accurate game bidding. Thus if, like me, your focus is on imp competition, they seem like the 'wrong' system.

However, if your view differs, or if you focus mostly on mps, then you need, as you note, to think about how different parts of your methods mesh.

There is nothing wrong with lots of system, but it is essential to understand that every gadget carries a cost: you lose the previous meaning of the call, so you need to find another way of describing that now lost hand, and here using NFB perhaps suggests that you need 3♣ as natural, strong. On this hand, the odds that LHO can or will pre-empt in hearts is almost non-existent, but what if he jumped in spades? And of course on other hands, the need to double on a power one suiter can lead to really bad auctions later.

[jogs]

 mikeh, on 2014-August-31, 13:32, said:

I experimented with NFB many years ago and came to the realization that they are great for partscore competition but disastrous for accurate slam bidding and questionable for accurate game bidding. Thus if, like me, your focus is on imp competition, they seem like the 'wrong' system.

Non forcing doesn't mean partner must pass. Perhaps it is time to rethink hand strength. Bid up to your level of trumps. The extra trump is worth an extra trick.

♠ xx ♥ Qxxx ♦ AKxx ♣ Kxx

As dealer you open 1♦

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - pass
??

Do not pass. This is not a minimum. Bid 3♥.

♠ xxx ♥ AKxxxx ♦ xx ♣ Qx or
♠ xxx ♥ AKxxx ♦ xx ♣ Axx

is sufficient for 4♥ to be a favorite.

[Zelandakh]

On this auction you have plenty of options:

1. give up 2♣ as a NFB
2. give up 3♣ as a FJS
3. X with a good hand and live with the ambiguity
4. play X as 4+ spades and use 1♠ to cover (inter alia) good hands with clubs

All have pros and cons. You just have to agree something and accept whichever disadvantage it gives.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

one option is to play transfer responses after intervention, this allowes you to bid forcing /
nonforcing single suited hands.

We played NFBs, before we switched to transfers, and we (still) play fit (non) jumps, and it works reasonably
well. The question is always, what fit means, sometimes it is just tolerance, which is not 100% the same.
Fit Jumps after partner opened a possible short minor, are rare, we play it for consistency reasons,
keeps life simple.

With the given hand, you have no real problem, start with X, if they sac. with 4H, you wont stop them,
and the exploration of 6C is not much easier, even assuming that you already showed gf values with clubs,
of course it would be better, but not by a huge degree.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[msjennifer]

 gordontd, on 2014-August-31, 08:14, said:

With those agreements it's normal to start with double on game-forcing hands.

Yes indeed! With all those advertised restrictions the only agreement left is to make a double and then bid the appropriate game or even a slam if partner does show life.I entirely agree with you.

[msjennifer]

Me and my partner do not play a bid of 3 clubs as fit jump but a natural Game Force requesting partner to bid naturally neglecting the interference totally.

[Vampyr]

 jogs, on 2014-August-31, 18:41, said:

Do not pass. This is not a minimum. Bid 3♥.

♠ xxx ♥ AKxxxx ♦ xx ♣ Qx or
♠ xxx ♥ AKxxx ♦ xx ♣ Axx

is sufficient for 4♥ to be a favorite.

I don't play NFBs, but somehow I don't think these hands qualify. Certainly not the second one.

[akwoo]

 Vampyr, on 2014-September-01, 12:20, said:

I don't play NFBs, but somehow I don't think these hands qualify. Certainly not the second one.

Different people play them differently. When I played them (in the context of a K-S system), they were about good 7 to bad 12 - the defined minimum was being willing to play in 2N opposite 15-17 balanced and the defined maximum was anything short of game forcing. By those standards, both hands qualify.

[Vampyr]

 akwoo, on 2014-September-01, 17:04, said:

Different people play them differently. When I played them (in the context of a K-S system), they were about good 7 to bad 12 - the defined minimum was being willing to play in 2N opposite 15-17 balanced and the defined maximum was anything short of game forcing. By those standards, both hands qualify.

Is it common for NFBidders to define the double as GF?