[Hanoi5]

Let's say the bidding goes:

1♥-(2♣)-???

In standard 2♠ by partner shows 5 cards and at least 10 (11) HCP. It is forcing. If partner doubles, he's showing normally 10+ HCP and usually 4 spades. If partner bids spades after that double (1♥-2♣-X-P-2♦-P-2♠) he's showing some 6 spades and some 7-10 HCP (not forcing).

When negative free bid is in use, how does it work? Is it better? Is there other way to play the previously mentioned situation?

[Codo]

The idea behind nfb is this:

When you have a real strong hand you are strong enough to double first and bid your suit later, even when they compete. But when you have an intermedeate hand, you may have just one bid to describe your hand, so you better take your chance now.

So lets compare two situations. IN both cases partner opened 1 spade, RHO did bid 2 Diamond.

Hand 1: You hold x,AQxxx,xxxx,Kxx
Hand 2: You hold x,AKJxx,xxx, AQxx

Hand 1:
Playing NFBs the bidding may start with:

1♠ (2♦) 2 ♥

and whatever will happen, you have shown your hand at once. You can pass now any bid from partner (or accept an invitation)

Playing standard method, you need to double, so the bidding starts with:

1 ♠ (2♦ X pass

Unluckily partner does not know that you have 5 hearts, so he often won't bid hearts even with 3 card support.

Things get even worse when they preempt further:

1♠ (2♦) X (3♦)

Now it is a real mess for partner. OF course this is solvable, but it is tricky.


Hand 2:
Playing NFB you need to double, planing to rebid hearts later to show your strength.

1♠ (2♦) x (pass)
2♠ pass 3 ♥

now you have shown a GF hand with 5+ hearts.

Even when they preempt, you are well placed to bid hearts on higher levels, because you know that your overall strength is enough to bid game.

Playing standard, you simply bid 2 heart and await the later development. You are one level lower, which must be significant better then the other approach.


But I guess in many hands, NFBs are real big winners. But many (maybe even most?) expert partnerships still use the standard approach, so taste may differ.

[awm]

One of the big downsides for negative free bids is the invitational hands. The big advantage of negative free bids is that partner can pass the free bid (duh). But if your range includes hands just short of a game force, partner can't really pass very often. If he has a queen extra, he has to bid. If he has a singleton or void in your suit he has to bid (avoid declaring 5-1 fits). If he has three card support for your suit he has to bid (possible 6-3 fit makes game pretty easily). So he only really gets to pass when he has exactly doubleton in the suit and within a point or so of minimum values. This is not actually such a big win.

Of course, you could make the negative free bid truly "weak" but then you have to double on the invitational hands as well as the game force ones, which makes it virtually impossible to untangle the (usually much higher scoring) hands where you want to look for game.

With this said, negative free bids work fairly well opposite a call that is almost always a balanced hand in a limited range. This is because you rarely force partner to remove your suit on a misfit minimum, and partner's overall strength tends to be more restricted. For example, most people play "negative free bids at the two-level" over 1NT-(2♦ natural). Similarly, playing a style where a certain minor suit opener is "almost always a weak notrump" (i.e. 1♦ natural unbalanced, 1♣ includes all balanced hands not in 1NT range) you're likely to get more mileage out of NFB than over a major suit opening.

A more "high-tech" alternative is to play transfer free bids.

[mikeh]

Some very good pairs use NFB. I think Adam accurately summarized the main factors... I would add a couple more on the downside, but they are relatively low frequency. I do suspect that they work more effectively in the context of a limited opening bid system, since their main downside is that they make constructive bidding difficult on good hands opposite good hands, when the opps have a fit... this will be less of a problem when opener's values are limited to, say, 15 hcp.

This may be why Meckwell has played them (at least, if memory serves).

Also: I wonder if anyone has toyed with the idea of playing nfb only when the opps are red... I would imagine that playing them only at favourable would significantly reduce the cost/frequency of opposition preempting.

[kenrexford]

NFB's are often the subject of debate. I have no position to share as to NFB's. However, one word of caution.

Some conventions are relatively easy to adopt. If you decide, for example, that a 3♠ response to a 2NT opening is a relay and shows some sort of minor-oriented slam try, the "what next" discussion is relatively easy. You just discuss a few sequences and agree on things like (1) can Opener super-accept generally by rejecting the relay, (2) what does Responder do next to show various hands, and how does this change if Opener super-accepts, (3) what if anything is RKCB, (4) is 4NT playable, and (5) are undiscussed bids cues of some variety, and of what variety.

Other conventions, however, so radically mess with basic structure that it is almost like learning a completely different system. NFB's are not as complicated as, for example, just deciding to open the second-longest suit rather than the longest suit (canape), but it's much closer to that than to most conventions in discussion time and in necessary additional conventions, IMO. Much of the additional "stuff" is not obvious and is not easily researched.

The NFB itself is relatively easy to handle. The difficult part is the double to catch a lot of strong hand possibilities and unwinding what happens next, especially if the opponents jam the auction. It's like Precision. Limited openings are great and easy to discuss. Tossing in a nebulous strong 1♣ opening, and the likely messing around you get after doing this, is where many unprepared Precision players get hammered.

[peachy]

Your description of standard is spot on. Assume you play that with any reasonable level player, unless NFB have been explicitly agreed.

NFB is a playable, some say it is better. Matter of taste It basically works the opposite of standard. For example, in NFB negative double followed by a new suit is forcing while in standard negative double followed by a new suit is weakish and intended as signoff.

[barryallen]

I like nfb because I believe they are more effective in the part score arena, not masked by a pre-emptive bid and sometimes reducing the opponents possible communication. The only trouble is that it can partially stymie those invitational hands. As rewards for game are far higher, I normally play it as standard.

Because of my undying love for Lebensohl, I was wondering whether Lebensohl could not be used here? With openers responses to X, similar to those over a fnt in 2/1?