[cherdano]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 24 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

But the main problem i see, and that is the issue Han and
Cherdano refer to, is, that NF is not the standard treatment
in North America, I used to believe, that it is the main treatent
in Germany, at least among good players, but I am not sure
anymore.

I know NFB are popular in Germany, but on this auction (over a weak jump overcall) I would be surprised if many play it.

[P_Marlowe]

cherdano, on Nov 24 2008, 02:34 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 24 2008, 01:25 AM, said:

But the main problem i see, and that is the issue Han and
Cherdano refer to, is, that NF is not the standard treatment
in North America, I used to believe, that it is the main treatent
in Germany, at least among good players, but I am not sure
anymore.

I know NFB are popular in Germany, but on this auction (over a weak jump overcall) I would be surprised if many play it.

Most likely wrong wording.

I wanted to say, that I am not even sure anymore,
that in Germany NFB is the main treatment for a change
of suit on the 2 level after an overcall.

At least my impression was, that lots of good players
switch back to forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

I have yet to meet someone who plays nfb after 1x (2♠) or similar auctions.

For me it is possible to play them at the second level if you have a good discussion about the meaning of X, pass, 2 NT, cuebid, direct bids and jumps.

I doubt that it is worth to adopt this apporach and the time you need to spend on this to make it work.

But, we had the discussion here about good/bad 2 NT.
So, if you want to compete with goods suits which are not good enough for a gf bid, try what Ron has announced and use 2 NT for the constructive but nf hands.

[P_Marlowe]

Codo, on Nov 24 2008, 05:00 AM, said:

I have yet to meet someone who plays nfb after 1x (2♠) or similar auctions.

For me it is possible to play them at the second level if you have a good discussion about the meaning of X, pass, 2 NT, cuebid, direct bids and jumps.

I doubt that it is worth to adopt this apporach and the time you need to spend on this to make it work.

But, we had the discussion here about good/bad 2 NT.
So, if you want to compete with goods suits which are not good enough for a gf bid, try what Ron has announced and use 2 NT for the constructive but nf hands.

Hi,

I am pretty sure Gromöller - Kirmse do.

I was surprised to hear this in the seminar, but this was
my impression, I may of course be wrong.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cascade]

Hi Roland

I am Wayne.

Nice to meet you.

I play negative freebids on all auctions where we are bidding a new suit in competition at the two or three-level.

In spite of the prevailing standard opinion this method offers a number of advantages:

1. Even with the opponent showing a weak hand the most common hand strength for responder is around 9-10 hcp. In a simulation with opener having a standard 1C opening - around 11-19 hcp and the overcaller having 6-10 responder was in the range 7-11 over 50% of the time;

2. Not everyone plays the jump overcall as weak - especially when they are vulnerable. In this case the most common strength of responder is around 7-8 hcp. In a similar simulation with 2S being 11-15 hcp 56% of the time responder was in the range 5-9 hcp;

3. Possibly the best method is to vary according to the strength of the 2S overcall. In practice almost everyone prefers to play one method independent of the opponents strength;

4. Negative free bids make it easier to compete for a part-score on these hands with the most frequent strength;

5. More importantly negative free bids make it easier to bid games when partner has a good fit and minimum values for our long suit. The hands that are suitable for negative free bids often have good playing strength which offers some safety when no fit is found and excellent prospects of game when there is a fit;

6. True game force hands (13+) with a five-card suit only occur with about the same frequency as a good negative free-bid with a six-card suit. Shading the values for a forcing free bid increases the frequency but with the cost of creating many more forcing pass situations where it is uncertain that the hand truely belongs to our side. This is especially true in a partnership that opens light.

There are certainly problem hands for negative free bids. I don't believe the problems are significantly worse than the problems for standard bidders. In the end everyone has the same number of bids available on a particular auction. If you utilize all of those bids for sensible hand types then your method will not be significantly more or less effective than someone else who finds a different sensible solution for the same problem.

Kathryn's question of whether it is better to bid differently in competition is a good one.

The approach forcing method works well when the opponents do not interfere but it is far from clear to me that this same approach is better in a competitive auction.

We have put a reasonable amount of work into our competitive auctions. As I have suggested I don't think the differences are great. However Negative Free Bids are a style that I really like and enjoy playing.

[vuroth]

mikeh, on Nov 23 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

The solution that the majority of experienced players adopt is to recognize that sometimes we have to pass with a hand where we'd like to bid, but where our methods don't permit it... after all, maybe partner can reopen... and, if not, maybe we haven't really missed anything.

I would go so far as to suggest that, for many improving players... players who have learned that aggression is often a good idea. their commonest mistakes involve failing to pass when they should.

I figured it would come down to partner reopening. One of the mental hurdles to overcome as a B/I is trusting partner to reopen, espcially if I'm not always sure that I'd reopen myself.

As for failing to pass when I should? Tell me about it...