[sfbp]

Quote

and with this one, for you what would this mean?

1h (2c) 3c

I like to promise game invitational values but 3+ trumps. With most bad hands and 4 hearts you bid 3h in this situation. With most good hands and 4 hearts you simply bid game, unless you really have ambitions. Even in standard, where opener could have a good hand, he doesnt need to be blocked from continuing by your 4H bid. Preempting to 4H in competition really isnt nearly as common as you might imagine (more work for BRBR I suspect).

I realise that conventional wisdom promises 4 hearts for this bid. I just disagree. Cuebidding (3C) and then a new suit of some sort is an easy way to bid a much stronger hand yet.

[pigpenz]

i used to play NF Free Bids and enjoyed them...but like any loaded gun you have to be careful on how you handle it.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on May 2 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

I found Wayne's reply interesting (no surprise there ). Do you play a limited opening bid style?

My first reaction is that the unloading of the double carries a huge cost: more so in a standard type method than in a limited opener style. Responder, with a good hand and a good suit, or two-suiter, must preempt the auction, without establishing a fit. This is theoretically unsound if both opener and responder may have wide-ranging hand strengths. However, the costs are reduced, altho not eliminated, in a limited bid style.

As for the other recent posts, I would immediately begin playing nfb's if I could find opps who never preempt after their partner's overcall and my partner's negative double.

I know that whenever I play a pair that practices the nfb, I pray that we are white and I look for opportunities to bounce.

While it is foolhardly to ignore partscore swings, most matches (and my comments are aimed only at imps) are decided on game and slam swings. NFB's give an edge on the 2-6 imp hands and (with or without Wayne's adjustments) carry a cost in the 10-17 imp range.

Thanks I think.

We play a wide range 4-card major variable NT (weak 1st/2nd, strong 3rd/4th).

Yes responder pre-empts the auction without establishing a fit and there is some cost to this - sometimes we are forced to 4NT, sometimes we have to guess our level. But there is also a benefit. These bids are more closely defined so sometimes others have to guess with less information. In a standard auction e.g.

1♥ (2♣) 2♠ shows 5+ spades and forcing to game

whereas for us

1♥ (2♣) 3♠ shows a uni-directional hand with 6+ spades and

1♥ (2♣) 4♦ shows diamonds and spades

There are certainly gains at times from our added definition especially when there is pre-emption from the opponents. There is also added definition from our 2♠ negative free-bid which is hidden in pass or double or a stretch to 2♠ in standard methods - there are certainly hands that I would bid 2♠ on whether playing negative free bids or not and I am much happier making this bid when playing negative free bids.

Of course our double is overloaded but here too there are swings and roundabouts. The most common fit that we would miss or have trouble finding is a five-three fit. At IMPs this is sometimes no big deal - 3NT or 5minor will also make or we can extract a suitable penalty from our opponents. A double showing useful values and not concentrating on unbid majors allows us to tell partner we have something useful on hands where others might have to pass. Often there are subtle inferences when we act later e.g. that we might have tolerance for partner's suit.

Theoretically it is best to overload the cheapest bid compared with other bids so overloading double works well in many situations.

Being able to bid a long suit in a non-forcing hand not only wins part-scores it also wins tight games that you may not reach if you have to start with a less descriptive double (particularly with further interference) or even a pass.

[Free]

I play NFB in a MOSCITO context. Dbl is takeout, usually showing inv+ values and no fit. 3-level bids are FSJ.

I like them a lot, but they aren't extremely effective in this system as you might think. If opponents have the hand, they'll bid anyway. And most of the time we find a decent Major fit very fast because of the MAFIA style openings, so support has priority. One of the biggest advantages is when you have to defend: opener knows you're short in his suit, so against suit contracts he may find the right lead. Against NT contracts, at least you've shown your suit.

I don't play them 0-8, I play them rather constructive, fighting the partscore.

[whereagles]

I dislike negative free bids mostly because they dump all the strong hands into double.

That goes against the principle of "shape first, hcp later" and is thus bound to create trouble in the long run. Especially if opps raise the overcall with a preempt... typical unlucky expert stuff: endplaying yourself into situations where simple bidding by opps puts you to some rather annoying guesses.

There might be some situations where it makes sense to use NFB, but, in general the principle is, in my opinion, unsound.

[luke warm]

whereagles, on May 2 2006, 05:36 AM, said:

I dislike negative free bids mostly because they dump all the strong hands into double.

That goes against the principle of "shape first, hcp later" and is thus bound to create trouble in the long run. Especially if opps raise the overcall with a preempt... typical unlucky expert stuff: endplaying yourself into situations where simple bidding by opps puts you to some rather annoying guesses.

There might be some situations where it makes sense to use NFB, but, in general the principle is, in my opinion, unsound.

as with all treatments, this is a matter (imo) of frequency... the gf bids you speak of, those dumped into the double, do they occur more or less often than the 6/7-11 hcp 5pcs hands? iow, do you gain more by being able to bid these hands than you lose by lumping gf into double?

[Cascade]

whereagles, on May 2 2006, 10:36 PM, said:

I dislike negative free bids mostly because they dump all the strong hands into double.

That goes against the principle of "shape first, hcp later" and is thus bound to create trouble in the long run.

This is not strictly true.

You have a choice of shape first with strong hands or shape first with weaker but constructive hands.

Both methods use "shape first, hcp later" with some hands and not with others.

In some situations e.g. opening bid - 2-level overcall, weaker hands are much more frequent than GF hands. In other situations perhaps GF hands are more common e.g. opening bid - weak jump overcall. I don't think the decision is clear-cut. Anyone can easily construct the problem situations but in practice having played both methods I am not sure that there is a big issue with which method you play. Both methods work well on some hands and have potential for problems on other hands.

[helene_t]

I started playing NFB before I learned anything about system theory, simply out of the principle that "first double, then bid" is stronger than a direct bid, which applies in other situations. Only later I learned that there was an alternative.

With pick-up partners I prefer forcing freebids since they are more standardized. With NFB you have to agree excatly when they apply : in the Netherlands, many people play only a two-level freebid in a suit higher than the opening suit as NFB, Also, you have to agree what a cuebid shows after a minor suit opening and a ajor suit overcall (it makes some sense to allow for a strong hand with length in the other minor), and if you play strong jump shifts in competition.

With a regular p I don't care much, I think the advantages and disadvantages are roughly equal. There is a point to be made for playing NFB at matchpoints and FFB at IMPs, as Mike suggested. But then again, at matchpoints overcalls tend to be lighter which makes FFB better.

[david_c]

I like NFBs in situations where my opening bid usually shows a balanced hand. Take the auction 1♣ : (1♠) : 2♥ as an example. If we play Polish Club then I like 2♥ to be a NFB, but if we play Acol then NFBs are not so useful. Better minor is somewhere in the middle, and I would be happy with either treatment. In contrast, after a major-suit opening I don't like NFBs at all.

But this is assuming the methods have to be natural. If your partnership can handle transfers, I think that's much better, no matter what your opening bid means. ["Switch" is great, particularly after 1m : (1♠).]

[sfbp]

Quote

I dislike negative free bids mostly because they dump all the strong hands into double.

That goes against the principle of "shape first, hcp later" and is thus bound to create trouble in the long run. Especially if opps raise the overcall with a preempt... typical unlucky expert stuff: endplaying yourself into situations where simple bidding by opps puts you to some rather annoying guesses.

There might be some situations where it makes sense to use NFB, but, in general the principle is, in my opinion, unsound.

You hit the nail on the head!

The NFB is the perfect way to bid the one-bid hand. It shows its shape in a way (immediately) that you may be otherwise waiting until tomorrow before partner finds out you had it. eg

♠632 ♥5 ♦95 ♣JT97642

Partner opens 1♥, RHO bids 1♠ (so opps have the boss suit already)

Bid 2♣ and watch opps' faces when partner makes a disciplined pass Over and over I have witnessed the NFB itself be the last makeable contract by either side.

Doubling simply says, I have some values but I can't bid them right now. If the opponents have got lots of cards, then I want to know it - it helps me bid my hand. The fear of being preempted is only real with a pickup partnership or where we don't have methods to know which of our own subsequent doubles are penalty (nearly all). Generally them bidding gives us a chance to double them for penalty as well as bidding our own hands.

Haven't you ever wondered why it is right to have a whole variety of strong bids (all the forcing freebids) but only one weak bid, in competition - when the strong bids are not that frequent?

How many times *have* you passed because you had to?

LukeWarm's point is about frequency. Have more bids for more frequent hands, and have a single bid for the less frequent ones.

The biggest problem with NFB, in my opinion is that, just as with weak jump shifts, people make them on hands which are too good. The rule I use, if you think partner might need to bid, then it's not suitable for an NFB on your hand. I also don;t like them at the three level, because to be safe, you now have to have more values, which runs counter to the principle of bidding quickly to shut partner up.

Stephen

[Chamaco]

I play:

1. Limited openings (Precision)
2. Transfer response after a 1-level overcall
3. NFB after a 2-level overcall

Requirements for a NFB:
a. Good and/or long suit (pard will pass with 1-2 trumps)
b. NOT A BAD hand: NFB is constructive, say 8-9 losers, and includes invitational hands.
c. NFB occurs only at level 2 (level 3 always GF)
d. we play NFB only after 1D opener (not 1M)

What does responder do with a GF hand ?
a. Nondescript hand (no good suit, no extra shape): it doubles
b. Single suiter: bids at 3 level
c. 2 suiters: cuebids
d. good hands with support: FJS

Obligation of opener after a NFB:
Opener ALWAYS raises with 3+ card support. With extra shape and/or good controls etc etc, he might choose to raise directly to game.
If opener makes a simple raise, responder shall take the final decision.


What does responder do with a real bad hand ? (say 10+ losers)
If overcall was at level 1, he'll transfer, but if overcall was at level 2 he shall pass. Oh well, I know bridge is a bidder's game, but some times passing is not a tragedy

What about the problem of "dumping all good hands in the double" ?

This is not strictly true: this will occur only after a 2-level overcall, AND, it will happen for hands WITHOUT specific shape/honors concentration.
So yes, we lose the chance to show a featureless 5 card suit, but often this is not a tragedy...

[FrancesHinden]

I play in two regular partnerships.
One of them plays 2-major ONLY as a NFB (anything else is forcing, jumps fit*). The other plays what I think is the more common style, which is forcing free-bids.

Having got through a lot of boards in both styles over the years, I don't feel very strongly about which is better; both work as long as the partnership understands what it is doing.

I certainly don't play NFB the way Stephen describes.
The NFB partnership plays 2M as a sort of 'textbook' weak two, albeit possibly a 5-card suit. Vulnerable, something like KQ109xx with nothing outside would be an absolute minimum. There are quite a lot of hands where I'd bid 2M whether it's forcing or not (but then even when I play 2M as forcing, it's not as strong as mikeh plays it).

To put the other side of the coin, to us the advantage of the NFB is that it clarifies the meaning of double! It's been suggested that playing double as either 'standard' take-out or strong makes the subsequent auction difficult; but playing double as either 'standard' or a long weak suit gives at least as many problems. In practice, I simply compete a little less often in the non-NFB partnership.

yes, the next hand raising is a problem, but playing NFBs can give you an advantage. If it starts 1D (1S) x (2S), or 1D (2C) x (3C) or whatever, partner has much less idea whether to compete in a major than if you've already shown a decent suit there. IN fact, the auction 1D (2C) is one of the best to play 2M as non-forcing, as double doesn't traditionally promise both majors, and it's very hard for partner to describe his hand properly if you could have a weak hand with a long major or a normal take-out double.

Playing NFBs at the 2-level, and playing 3-major as natural, strong, game forcing, the 'strong' hand-type that goes into the double is usually a 5-card suit. Partner is free to rebid, say, 3NT with a long minor and I don't have to guess whether to pull to my long major or not. The main hand type you lose out on is a strong 2-suiter.

*actually we play a combination of transfers and/or lebensohl in some auctions, but that doesn't change what's going on in the major.

[whereagles]

Cascade, on May 2 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

You have a choice of shape first with strong hands or shape first with weaker but constructive hands.

Well, I see it like this:

1♣ (1♠) dbl/2♥

NFB:
- 2♥ shows shape and strength. 5 hearts, 7-11 hcp (more or less).
- dbl shows almost nothing! It can be 4 hearts and 7+hcp, or 5 hearts and 12+hcp, or any strong hand. It doesn't show neither strength nor shape precisely.

Standard:
- 2♥ shows shape and strength as well, only stronger.
- dbl shows 4 hearts and 7+hcp, and probably some diamonds as well. It's shape and strength as well.

So, while NFBs may work well when they come up, standard seems much more flexible because you don't get messed up with a strong hand.

[sfbp]

Quote

I certainly don't play NFB the way Stephen describes.

Oh well, I never claimed what I think the majority are doing. I simply argue that logically this is what NFB *should* mean.

Somehow I feel a thread on "iinfinite doubles" coming on.....

Cheers

Stephen

[Codo]

I don´t see any reason for not using NFB.
Cascade put it in fine words: There are hands, where they win and hands, where they loose. Same could be said about Stephens concept of antiforcing Freebids.

If you double with hands, which are too weak for a direct 2 bid, you overload the double as much as you do, if you use NFB.
F.E:After 1 Club (1 Spade),
you cannot handle. xx,KQJxxx,xxx,Qx without doubling first and bid Hearts later- or double and sit quite after
1 Club (1 Spade) X (3 Spade)
pass pass.

This is as bad as when you have the same hand, but wiht the ace of Spades extra. Then the advocats of NFB do have a problem and the FFB crew is happy.

The argument, that you overload the double is simply not true. You always have limited space to show an unlimited number of hands. This is true in any situation and NFB are not doing better in this area then FFBs, but exactly the same.

So, it is still the problem, Luke pointed out: What will happen more frequent and what will be more costly to miss?
To miss a game is surely much more expensive, but nfb do happen more often and it is easier to bid with gf strength after strong preempts from the opponents then with an invitational hand.

Stephens concept of antiforcing Free bids has more downsides then upsides for me.
If you alert your bid to the opps, you will seldom stop them from bidding and as you have to show all hands with invitational or GF values without the use of the no jumpl suit bids, you will overload all other bids. Of course, this is makable, I just do not believe, that it is superior.

[Codo]

whereagles, on May 2 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 2 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

You have a choice of shape first with strong hands or shape first with weaker but constructive hands.

Well, I see it like this:

1♣ (1♠) dbl/2♥

NFB:
- 2♥ shows shape and strength. 5 hearts, 7-11 hcp (more or less).
- dbl shows almost nothing! It can be 4 hearts and 7+hcp, or 5 hearts and 12+hcp, or any strong hand. It doesn't show neither strength nor shape precisely.

Standard:
- 2♥ shows shape and strength as well, only stronger.
- dbl shows 4 hearts and 7+hcp, and probably some diamonds as well. It's shape and strength as well.

So, while NFBs may work well when they come up, standard seems much more flexible because you don't get messed up with a strong hand.

If you restrict your X to: 4 hearts 7+ HCPs, may have some Diamonds,
then you are stuck with xxx,xx,KQJTxx,xx, because you have no bid.
And: the strength of the double is nearly unlimited.

If you play NFB, the double will show several handtypes, including the normal take out 6+ HCPs AND some strong 5card suits. This is a disadvantages.
But if you don´t use NFB, it is exactly the same. You may choose to put some one-suiters into your double, or you have to put them into your pass. Both is as good or as bad as it is using nfb.

[sfbp]

Quote

Stephens concept of antiforcing Free bids has more downsides then upsides for me.
If you alert your bid to the opps, you will seldom stop them from bidding and as you have to show all hands with invitational or GF values without the use of the no jumpl suit bids, you will overload all other bids. Of course, this is makable, I just do not believe, that it is superior.

I never indicated that it is necessary to hold a hand as BAD as the one I showed you - just that that is the one that in my limited experience showed the maximum profit.

I think it is critical to establish an upper limit to a NFB, and also to restrict them to the 2-level.

Sure, most of the time it will be 6-8 points, and most of the time you will not get a *bad* result from passing it. I started to look in BRBR, and the very first hand I popped up was a perfect example. Everyone going down in 4H, and 2H made 3 scoring 80%.

It's just arithmetic whether you are in the game zone. Trumps and HCP. If partner knows the upper limit to your hand, he can judge.

Stephen

[whereagles]

Codo, on May 2 2006, 01:24 PM, said:

If you restrict your X to: 4 hearts 7+ HCPs, may have some Diamonds, then you are stuck with xxx,xx,KQJTxx,xx, because you have no bid.

I have a fine bid for that hand, and that is "pass"

Besides, change it a bit into

xxx
Qx
K9xxxx
JT

and I might not even want to make an NFB with it

[Codo]

yes, I would pass too while using FFBs and that makes a problem in the part score area, because you may never find the fit.
And with your example hand, most NFBidders will pass- at least I will without thinking too much about it.

[Chamaco]

sfbp, on May 2 2006, 01:25 PM, said:

It's just arithmetic whether you are in the game zone. Trumps and HCP. If partner knows the upper limit to your hand, he can judge.

Stephen

I agree with the concept of a NFB having a narrow range of strength so that opener can judge whether to move forward or not.

It's just that I like to keep that range between "constructive" and "invitational" rather than being closer to a shutout bid.

I also agree on the concept that the hcp content is also not critical, and that the hcp requirements decrease as responder has more shape.

That's why I prefer to define the requirements in terms of "losers" (using a sort of LTC) rather than hcp.