[gwnn]

Say you use old fashion 2/1 GF. You have these two sequences:

1♠-(2♣)-2♦
1♠-(X)-2♦

Of course, the guy with diamonds is a non-passed hand. Do you prefer these 2♦'s to be:
NF (ie ~8-11, or after X, even weaker)?
F (ie 10+ or equiv)?
GF (ie 12+ or equiv)?

I know some of you guys use transfers after t/o X. Pretend you play in an event they are banned.

[Cascade]

I like both sequences to be NF but I am guessing that won't be mainstream.

In fact I play the first sequence with a wider range - around 6-11.

[MickyB]

I play 1♠ (2♣) 2♦/♥ as NF with 2N+ showing stronger hands:

2N = ♦
3♣ = ♥
3♦ = ♠ raise

I'm fine with 2♦ and 2♥ being forcing here because you can still stop in 2♠, but if 1♦ (2♣) 2♥ and similar are forcing then you are getting uncomfortably high considering that's the only way to show the suit.

[kenberg]

My vote was for F/NF. This makes sense to me. Let me be, perhaps, provocative.

As near as I can tell, this is by far the most frequently recommended treatment in the literature. I know of no expert advice to play the 2D call as still game forcing, after which it doesn't matter whether 2D without the intervention would have been game forcing. Using 1S-(2C)-2D as passable, and thus the double to cover a wide variety of hands, has some expert support but I think not broad support. Who are the expert pairs who play 1S as wide range (ie they do not play precision or some other agreement that limits 1S to around 15-16 hcps) and play negative free bids? I am right, am I not, that they are in the minority?

Ken

[Echognome]

My preferred method for the 2nd auction is definitely "transfer". But given that isn't a choice, I chose F, F. I don't like having to XX or jump with a good hand. Transfers are ideal because you can both get your suit (lead) in and still have another bid if you have a good hand.

[neilkaz]

I play what is most common in the US. The 2/1 over the overcall is not GF but is a 1 rd force, while the 2/1 over the takeout X may be passed.. (ie Negative Free Bid strength)

.. neilkaz ..

[Cascade]

kenberg, on Dec 17 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

Using 1S-(2C)-2D as passable, and thus the double to cover a wide variety of hands, has some expert support but I think not broad support. Who are the expert pairs who play 1S as wide range (ie they do not play precision or some other agreement that limits 1S to around 15-16 hcps) and play negative free bids? I am right, am I not, that they are in the minority?

Being one that does play these bids as NF I think the argument presented by Ken is a little simplistic.

I think there are many swings and round-abouts with regard to the over-loading of double which is the common arguement given against negative free bids. The reality is that if you 2♦ is forcing then double has to cater to some of the weak hands that negative free bidders can freely bid with. If not - say your double guarantees the other major - then you overload pass with many good hands that don't have a bid.

e.g.

♠ xx
♥ xxx
♦ KQJ10xx
♣ xx

Sure this particular hand is low frequency but it is at the bottom of the range for a negative free bid - some even need more than this. But really is this a hand you want to be passing? You have five tricks opposite an opening hand. I want to bid with these hands.

Yes we throw some hands into Dbl that others make a more natural bid with but there are other options for diamond hands. We have all of the following available:

Dbl no support but useful values a subsequent new suit bid is forcing but not too distributional
2♦ Non-forcing almost always a six-card or longer suit
3♦ Forcing with six or more diamonds
3NT With a good club stopper and diamonds not worth emphasising
4♦ Five diamonds and five hearts - not the most efficient bid but it gets two features off our hands when it comes up.

Overall I don't feel that negative free bids unduly overload our double and we enjoy the freedom of bidding directly with weaker hands with potential.

[kenberg]

I can see how nfbs might go well, and I confess I might have trouble giving a coherent explanation as to exactly why I like 2D to be NF over a double but F over 2C. Mostly I find this to work well enough and so I see no reason to change. I was not so much stating certainty about what is best, but rather saying that I think nfbs have not gained wide acceptance at the expert level. Certainly they don't have the almost universal acceptance of rkc, and I think that the level is much lower.

Suppose we take, for example, the top fifty seeds in the recent Reisinger. That's 100 pairs. Suppose we go through and eliminate the pairs who have limited 1S openings (limited to around 16 hcps). Then we check the remaining pairs to see if they do or do not play negative free bids after a non-jump 2 level overcall. I have no idea if we could actually carry this out, but (note to organizers for the future) it would be nice if we could. For now let's imagine we do so. My guess is that we will find nfbs on at most 20% of the cards (after the elimination of the limited openings).

The poster indicates an interest in the statistics around these methods. I share the interest but I am also interested in how the expert community has come to evaluate nfbs. Thanks to the wonders of bbo, I watch a fair amount of high level play. Negative free bids occur, but not often. Or so it seems to me.

If I were to lobby for nfbs, I am sure I could make a respectable case for them, but so far not a case where I have convinced myself.

Ken

[Gerben42]

Quote

I was not so much stating certainty about what is best, but rather saying that I think nfbs have not gained wide acceptance at the expert level

It depends where you are from. In many countries they have.

[awm]

Well I tried playing negative free bids for a while in a 2/1-style system. There seemed to be some issues. Primarily the question is "when should opener pass"? Obviously there are various answers to this, but my observations were:

(1) If the negative free bid can include "invitational" values, then it becomes hard for opener to pass. He has to bid on with mild extras, or with a good fit, or with a true misfit. It can be hard to distinguish some of these cases. The more often opener is bidding again, the less is gained from the NF free bid in any case.

(2) If the negative free bid is always a bad hand with a six-plus card suit, then opener can pass a lot, which is nice. The problem is that now you have to double with invitational or better hands (rather than just GF hands) in addition to the normal negative double hands. This makes it hard to disambiguate all of the possible doubles, much more so than if the negative free bid range was something like 6-11.

On the other hand, negative free bids seem to be practically a necessity using a polish club structure. The issue is interference after the 1♣ opening. If responder tends to pass with 8-11 points and a flattish hand, it makes things very difficult when opener has the strong option. But making forcing bids opposite what's usually a weak NT with 8-11 points is not very playable. Of course, once you're playing negative free bids over 1♣-(inteference) it seems natural to extend it to other sequences...

In any case there is an argument for transfers in any/all competitive auctions to combine the advantages of both sides. A lot of good players seem to be adopting transfers after the opponents' takeout double, and a few people are using them after overcalls as well (especially if the opening bid "usually" showed a balanced hand in some range, like a polish 1♣ or precision 1♦).

[mike777]

I play nfb in one 2/1 system....not sure the gains are worth the loss but it is close.

[Gerben42]

This is a complicated question. After Dbl I prefer transfers (best of both worlds), if not then I prefer NFB.

After overcalls there is less space, considering transfers.

Mike, are you sure your system is not this?:

1♠ (2♣)

2♦/♥ natural NF
2NT transfer to opps suit (forcing raise)
3♣ transfer to ♦
3♦ transfer to ♥
3♥ transfer to our suit (mixed raise)

The 3-level transfers then can show a GF hand with the suit OR invitational 1-suiter, to keep your NFB's really NF.

[MickyB]

Gerben42, on Dec 19 2006, 09:39 AM, said:

Mike, are you sure your system is not this?:

1♠ (2♣)

2♦/♥ natural NF
2NT transfer to opps suit (forcing raise)
3♣ transfer to ♦
3♦ transfer to ♥
3♥ transfer to our suit (mixed raise)

The 3-level transfers then can show a GF hand with the suit OR invitational 1-suiter, to keep your NFB's really NF.

Erm, yes, I'm very sure

I found that making a "one-under" transfer include invitational hands wasn't playable, because now opener needs to find something else to bid any time he has a little bit extra. "Two-under" transfers, on the other hand, leave plenty of room to sort these hands out, and to distinguish minimum misfitting opening hands from those with extras.

Btw, 3♥ is a stop-ask, we've had a couple of nice results with it but I'm not convinced that it's the best meaning.

[MickyB]

awm, on Dec 19 2006, 02:01 AM, said:

On the other hand, negative free bids seem to be practically a necessity using a polish club structure. The issue is interference after the 1♣ opening. If responder tends to pass with 8-11 points and a flattish hand, it makes things very difficult when opener has the strong option. But making forcing bids opposite what's usually a weak NT with 8-11 points is not very playable. Of course, once you're playing negative free bids over 1♣-(inteference) it seems natural to extend it to other sequences...

In any case there is an argument for transfers in any/all competitive auctions to combine the advantages of both sides. A lot of good players seem to be adopting transfers after the opponents' takeout double, and a few people are using them after overcalls as well (especially if the opening bid "usually" showed a balanced hand in some range, like a polish 1♣ or precision 1♦).

As you say, NFBs or transfers are clearly the best way to introduce suits at the 2 level opposite a Polish Club. You are well placed - you have competed quickly to a sensible contract opposite the weak NT, and if partner doesn't have at least a doubleton in support of your suit he will have 15+points. You don't have this last inference in standard or short club systems, but I still think it's important to be able to stop at the 2 level opposite a weak NT - you want to be bidding your suits immediately on these hands in spite of the risk of finding partner with a misfitting minimum.

Obviously, transfers have their advantages and their disadvantages. They put less pressure on opps than NFBs, and you lose a bid that could have been NF. After 1♣ (2♦), you don't really want to lose a way of playing in 2♥. On the other hand, I'm not keen on NFB structures where you don't have a way to show your suit immediately on a stronger hand. That usually means using up a lot of space and losing fit-jumps, but I think it's worth it.

Anyway, if you try to optimise your structure for all sequences it becomes quite hard work