[straube]

So let's say you're playing Precision and pd opens 1D and next hand bids 2H. You play negative free bids so your 2S bid includes anything just shy of a GF (I guess), but what's the lower range? Your negative double (btw) has to allow for a 2N rebid so it needs to be invitational strength.

KQJxx xx xxxx xx ?
Kxxxx xx Axxx xx ?
KQxxx xx Axxx xx ?
KQxxx xx Axxx Qx ?
Axxxxx xx Qxx xx ?
Axxxxx xx Kxx xx ?
Axxxxx xx Axx xx ?

Feel free to post hands that you think are marginal 2S negative free bids.

[ArtK78]

I would have thought that a negative free bid had an upper limit of about 10 HCP, so that it was less than a game invitational hand.

But why would you make a negative free bid over a preempt? Essentially, you are violating the old adage "don't preempt over a preempt." Negative free bids are not preempts, but they are not forward going calls. It seems to me that when an opponent preempts over one of your side's opening bids, you are in a constructive bidding situation, and negative free bids don't fit into that structure very well.

I would play negative free bids off over preemptive calls. On the better hands, I would negative double with the intention of bidding spades later. KQxxx xx Axxx Qx might be good enough to bid 2♠ immediately over 2♥.

Some of the example hands aren't good enough for a standard negative double. For example, KQJxx xx xxxx xx is just a pass over 2♥, as is Kxxxx xx Axxx xx. Even Axxxxx xx Qxx xx and Axxxxx xx Kxx xx are just passes.

[broze]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-10, 11:24, said:

I would play negative free bids off over preemptive calls.

This is the agreement my partner and I have. They are also off after 1♦-(2♣)-? and no 1m-(1M)-2om auctions are NFBs either. I find they are best used very sparingly.

[straube]

Well, interesting point about having them off against preempts. Let me rephrase the question and ask what the lower limit for a negative free bid after 1D* (2D) where 1D is artificial (could be zero diamonds) and 2D is a natural diamond overcall.

Also, I don't see how not to include invitational hands (don't understand a ceiling of 10 hcps) because what would otherwise would a hand with five spades and say 11 or 12 points bid?

[ArtK78]

straube, on 2012-December-10, 12:21, said:

Well, interesting point about having them off against preempts. Let me rephrase the question and ask what the lower limit for a negative free bid after 1D* (2D) where 1D is artificial (could be zero diamonds) and 2D is a natural diamond overcall.

Also, I don't see how not to include invitational hands (don't understand a ceiling of 10 hcps) because what would otherwise would a hand with five spades and say 11 or 12 points bid?

Lower limit? Something like KQJxxx and out.

As for not including invitational hands, I look at it exactly the opposite way. I don't see how a method where you can make a negative free bid (which, by definition, is nonforcing) on a hand as good as an invitational hand is playable.

Perhaps I have a lower limit to my negative free bids than you have. Or it may just be that we have a different understanding of what a negative free bid is.

[straube]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-10, 12:41, said:

Lower limit? Something like KQJxxx and out.

As for not including invitational hands, I look at it exactly the opposite way. I don't see how a method where you can make a negative free bid (which, by definition, is nonforcing) on a hand as good as an invitational hand is playable.

Perhaps I have a lower limit to my negative free bids than you have. Or it may just be that we have a different understanding of what a negative free bid is.

If you're playing NFBs and the bidding goes 1D (2D) where 2D is natural, what are you bidding with...

Kx Axxxx xx AJTx
and
xx AQxxx xx AJTx

[Vampyr]

straube, on 2012-December-10, 12:53, said:

If you're playing NFBs and the bidding goes 1D (2D) where 2D is natural, what are you bidding with...

Kx Axxxx xx AJTx
and
xx AQxxx xx AJTx

I've never played NFBs. but I thought that you double with these hands.

[straube]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-10, 13:28, said:

I've never played NFBs. but I thought that you double with these hands.

My understanding is that if you double and then bid you are forcing with that suit. So...

1D (2D) dbl P
2S P 3H

is effectively a game force.

So my point is that you have to have a plan for the GI hands and I think they belong with the NFBs. If so, that puts a floor somewhere on the NFBs because partner has to be able to raise so you can find your games.

I'm thinking the NFBs should be like 7-12 for most folks or perhaps 8-13 opposite light openings. Obviously with extra length in your suit, you can be on the light side.

Anyway, that's what I think, but still looking for opinions from folks who have played NFBs.

[ArtK78]

straube, on 2012-December-10, 12:53, said:

If you're playing NFBs and the bidding goes 1D (2D) where 2D is natural, what are you bidding with...

Kx Axxxx xx AJTx
and
xx AQxxx xx AJTx

Double. The double shows more values than the top of an NFB, or a standard negative double.

The drawback of playing NFBs is not the NFB itself - which, when it comes up, is usually very good. It is what you do with all of the hands too strong to make an NFB. The double is very wide ranging and, therefore, very vulnerable to preemption. But, quite frankly, even when the opps don't bid it can often be difficult to untangle your hands after the double.

I gave up playing NFBs about 30 years ago.

[mike777]

The "conventional wisdom", so to speak, is to play them over any interference as long as responder can bid his suit at the level of 3D or below, so they're "on" over weak jumps, too.
If responder jumps (1C-2D-3H), it's invitational -- just like 1C-1D-2H
---


double and bidding a new suit is gf.

---


Of course like anything there are going to be problem hands.

[mike777]

straube, on 2012-December-10, 12:53, said:

If you're playing NFBs and the bidding goes 1D (2D) where 2D is natural, what are you bidding with...

Kx Axxxx xx AJTx
and
xx AQxxx xx AJTx

with your examples your options would be:
pass or x or 2h. or 2nt if 1d promised a real suit.

none of these hands would be a gf for me.

[straube]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-10, 15:29, said:

Double. The double shows more values than the top of an NFB, or a standard negative double.

The drawback of playing NFBs is not the NFB itself - which, when it comes up, is usually very good. It is what you do with all of the hands too strong to make an NFB. The double is very wide ranging and, therefore, very vulnerable to preemption. But, quite frankly, even when the opps don't bid it can often be difficult to untangle your hands after the double.

I gave up playing NFBs about 30 years ago.

The way I look at NFBs is this...and my vision may not at all be standard, but..

Say the bidding goes 1D (2C) P ?

most folks play that a 2/2 isn't forcing so advancer can bid 2S (nf) with a goodish hand or game invitational hand. After all, the 2C bidder is likely to have an opening hand, an opponent has an opening hand, so there's room for advancer to have constructive or invitational values.

So basically, the same sort of hand that can advance 2S here is the hand I'm looking to bid 2S as a negative free bid after 1D (2D) ?

[dake50]

Instead of invite or not-that-strong characterizing Neg-FB,
how about "if you fit my suit and a prime card minimum or
better you ARE invited".
This suit needs to be suggested just in case you like it.
Partner's max but misfit is warned. Partner, with Qx
tolerance and some extras is encouraged.

[Codo]

straube, on 2012-December-10, 12:53, said:

If you're playing NFBs and the bidding goes 1D (2D) where 2D is natural, what are you bidding with...

Kx Axxxx xx AJTx
and
xx AQxxx xx AJTx

I would simply double and later bid Hearts at the lowest possible level. This shows a hand with a non-onesuiter and a GF. With a onesuiter I had jumped to 3 ♥ instead of double. Despite the fact that I do not use strong jumps that often- do you have a better idea about what 1D (2D) 3H should show?

To put it another way: The NFB hands are very common. And if you need to double with Kxxx,Kxxx,x,xxxx and say with xx,KQJxxx,xx,xxx it is quite hard for partner to bid on- esp. if the opps are so unkind to raise their suit. Passing with the second hand seems no good solution either.

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2012-December-10, 12:21, said:

Well, interesting point about having them off against preempts. Let me rephrase the question and ask what the lower limit for a negative free bid after 1D* (2D) where 1D is artificial (could be zero diamonds) and 2D is a natural diamond overcall.

Would you not be better off with transfers here, say: X = 4+ hearts; 2♥ = weak or GF with spades; 2♠ = nat, INV. Or a han-style scheme with X = 4+ spades perhaps? Within the NFB structure, perhaps you could get around the issue by playing 1♦ - (2♦) - X; 2♠ - 3♥ as invitational and bidding the GF hand with hearts via a cue bid: 1♦ - (2♦) - X; 2♠ - 3♦. It feels like there should be enough space to unwind this.

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 08:10, said:

Would you not be better off with transfers here, say: X = 4+ hearts; 2♥ = weak or GF with spades; 2♠ = nat, INV. Or a han-style scheme with X = 4+ spades perhaps? Within the NFB structure, perhaps you could get around the issue by playing 1♦ - (2♦) - X; 2♠ - 3♥ as invitational and bidding the GF hand with hearts via a cue bid: 1♦ - (2♦) - X; 2♠ - 3♦. It feels like there should be enough space to unwind this.

Well, we kind of need a takeout bid after 1D (2D) and reserving dbl to show four hearts works for some of those hands but doesn't show both majors. Plus we're using almost exactly the same scheme for 1D (2D) as we do for 1N (2D).

dbl-takeout/stayman
2M-competitive
2N-invitational
3C-invitational
3D-transfer
3H-transfer
3S-stopper ask/likely clubs

[Zelandakh]

In that case you already have a call (3red) to handle some of the stronger hands. You just need to define your double then bid to handle the type that you do not include there.

[rhm]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-10, 11:24, said:

I would have thought that a negative free bid had an upper limit of about 10 HCP, so that it was less than a game invitational hand.

But why would you make a negative free bid over a preempt? Essentially, you are violating the old adage "don't preempt over a preempt." Negative free bids are not preempts, but they are not forward going calls. It seems to me that when an opponent preempts over one of your side's opening bids, you are in a constructive bidding situation, and negative free bids don't fit into that structure very well.

I would play negative free bids off over preemptive calls. On the better hands, I would negative double with the intention of bidding spades later. KQxxx xx Axxx Qx might be good enough to bid 2♠ immediately over 2♥.

Some of the example hands aren't good enough for a standard negative double. For example, KQJxx xx xxxx xx is just a pass over 2♥, as is Kxxxx xx Axxx xx. Even Axxxxx xx Qxx xx and Axxxxx xx Kxx xx are just passes.

My understanding of a negative free bid is different.
I play it at the two level (if without a jump) and only there. It is a hand with a suit, which can not force to game but wants to compete, the type of hand, where people not playing them, often stretch for fear of getting shut out, and as a consequence get too high.
If I am already at the two level and I am not strong enough to force to game I do not understand why I would want to force at all.
The bid is constructive and shows some defensive values. So it is certainly game invitational if partner has support. It just does not want to force.
Partner typically passes with a doubleton or a minimum balanced hand and three card support. This occurs reasonably often.
It is certainly not preemptive by design, but it ensures that our side does not get shut out of the bidding and can stay low if the fit is not so good.
Your definition of game invitational seems to be that you want to have it forcing at the two level, which often implies that you can not play at the two level, even if partner has no support for your suit.
In that case you are likely getting too high.

If I could have bid a suit at the two level in competition, but I have a game force I have essentially two options:

1) I can jump to the 3 level, which is strong and shows a long strong suit, a hand unsuitable for defense. Since I play negative free bids only at the two level there is alwaysa bid available below 3NT to show a food suit in a good hand.
2) A negative double followed by a new suit bid. This shows a good hand with defensive values and not such a good suit, either a five card suit or a weak six card suit.
People, who do not play negative free bids use this sequence when they do not want to force, but I think you are more likely to get in trouble when you use this sequence for weak hands.

In my area and in Poland negative freebids are popular. In the US they are not and negative free bids seemed to be defined slightly different.
Rodwell, who I respect, seems to have analyzed them extensively and finally came up against them. But I do not know why.
There seems to be little in the English literature about this issue.
Does anybody have a good source about the pros and cons?

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 09:24, said:

In that case you already have a call (3red) to handle some of the stronger hands. You just need to define your double then bid to handle the type that you do not include there.

I think you mean that double can be prelude to a GF hand which is true. The more I think about it, our 2M has to handle both invitational hands and some constructive hands, so knowing just what the low end parameters are is what I'm really after. Opener has to be able to raise or even occasionally shoot out 3N.

[Zelandakh]

What I am saying is that you can, for example, play 3red as 5+ GF and X then bid the major as invitational with 5+. Or you could play 3red as 6+ INV+ with X then bid the major as INV with 5 and X then cue as 5 and GF. Whichever way you define the 3red bids, you have additionla hands leftover which can be defined by doubling and then bidding. This allows you to keep your NFB purer, which I think is a good thing, especially in a Precision context.