negative freebids

[42]

Hi!

Meetings with experts are always a dwell of joy. Yesterday the controversal discussion arose whether it is better to play negative freebids* or to play a new suit by responder as forcing. The "YES" expert said that the majority of experts /wc plays negative freebids (therefore the poll which might give an idea of the truth).

Assume the answer is yes:

- what is the idea behind? As far as I understood responder gives an immediate picture of his hand whilst doubling first (negative) with the intention to bid the long weak suit later might take too long and opps are taking the space.

- what is the worst and what the best suit you would bid as nonforcing?

- is there a restriction to the level? Here most people play them on level 2, a new suit on level 1 and level 3 is forcing.

 

If the answer is no:

- what keeps you away?

 

*situation: 1bla (1/2 blubb) new suit

[mike777]

Meckwell, Hamway and most top USA players do not play NFB. That surprised me since they play a strong club system and I thought NfB would be a big plus in a strong club system. With that said I play both Lawrence style where the responder bid is forcing but does not promise a rebid and NFB. Both styles have their plusses and minuses.

 

The range of the NFB depends on your opening style, if you open light in a 2/1 framework than NFB tend to be a bit stronger, say 8-12ish. My feeling is both methods are playable in a 2/1 framework and the play and defense of the cards matter much more.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I play neg. free bids, ... but if you look at the forum here,

most dont play them.

 

The adv. is clear, you show your suits direct, and are better

prepared to fight the part score battle, the disadv. is also

clear, if your side happens to have game / slam on, they

will make you guess on the 4 / 5 level.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pclayton]

In the days when a one level overcall meant something, they made some sense.

 

When the deal is frequently 'ours', NFB's are counter-productive.

[sfbp]

The big problem with NFB is just the same as with WJS - you have to make them on very BAD hands, and partner must pass them most of the time.

 

In other words they are not so much NONFORCING freebids, as ANTIFORCING freebids.

 

This means that you have to be very careful about what you bid NFB on. Our current rule is absolute maximum of 8 points, and no minimum.

 

I have found that passing them every time is effective, as long as pard doesnt have a hope in h*** of game.

 

In limited opening systems you may tend to have a bit more for bidding a NFB. In standard systems, try to scrape together a double on any hand with a whiff of game.

 

And yes, I voted to play them only on level 2, and NOT after a 2-level wjo eg 1m (2♥ ) 2♠

[mikeh]

While I rarely travel to tournaments anymore, my experience has been that very few top players play nfb.

 

I tried them once, years ago, and did not like them.

 

My bias is towards imps, and nfb always seemed (and seem) to me to be primarily a mp tool: trading frequency of gain on partscore hands with loss of bidding space on game/slam hands.

 

It is not the nfb that is the problem: it is the inability to make a natural, strength-showing bid as responder, especially if your suit is a minor.

 

Thus: 1♦ (1♠) x (3♠)...

 

 

Opener now has to cater to:

 

1) a classic negative double with 4♥ and anywhere from say 6 to 20 points

 

2) a hand too good for a negative freebid, with ♥

 

3) a hand too good for a nfb with ♣

 

In a nutshell: I refuse to play a method that is designed to cause me problems when I hold a good hand... and nfb are expressly designed to do just that.

 

There are, btw, alternatives that, to a limited degree, allow you to have your cake and eat it too: play transfer advances after overcalls:

 

Example:

 

1♦ (1♥) 1N is a transfer to ♣: any strength: opener treats it as if you have a 'weak 2' in ♣, and advancer can show extra strength later if he holds it

 

In this scheme, x = transfer to ♠ (4+) and 1♠ = transfer to 1N etc.

[sfbp]

It is not the nfb that is the problem: it is the inability to make a natural, strength-showing bid as responder, especially if your suit is a minor.

 

Thus: 1♦ (1♠) x (3♠)...

 

 

Opener now has to cater to:

 

1) a classic negative double with 4♥ and anywhere from say 6 to 20 points

 

2) a hand too good for a negative freebid, with ♥

 

3) a hand too good for a nfb with ♣

 

It is not the forcing free bid that is the problem, it is the inability to make a natural weak bid as responder, that is the problem, especially if your suit is a major :P

 

However your point is well made, and bears lengthy consideration. I think the real problem for most partnerships is that there have to be comprehensive understandings about doubles at all levels and in all seats. Once you have those, the 2-level problem isn't actually that bad.

 

So: I would never play NFB except with a serious partner. I usually wouldn't play them with a serious partner who doesn't play precision, UNLESS we had cultivated a light opening style of the kind that I advocate elsewhere, and also had discussed the consequences of unlimited doubles in all situations.

 

Once I've done that I'm fairly comfy using them. Perhaps the trick is to have ONE forcing bid. I haven't tried this, but it might make sense to have 2N as the forcing bid when opener can have up to 21 pts - how often do you really need to invite and play there in 2N?

 

Interested in your comments, as they touch on all the things I have seen/felt

 

Stephen

[han]

I don't play negative freebids, mostly for the reasons Mike gave. I have tried them in the past and found that double becomes too heavy.

 

I do play transfers in some limited situations right now. With Ben I used to play much more extensive transfers in competition. I think that "equality" is a theoretically superior method than negative freebids, but I found the memory load to be too heavy. If I was to form a regular face to face partnership with a partner who likes these methods too, then I would consider adopting equality again.

[inquiry]

I don't play negative freebids, mostly for the reasons Mike gave. I have tried them in the past and found that double becomes too heavy.

 

I do play transfers in some limited situations right now. With Ben I used to play much more extensive transfers in competition. I think that "equality" is a theoretically superior method than negative freebids, but I found the memory load to be too heavy. If I was to form a regular face to face partnership with a partner who likes these methods too, then I would consider adopting equality again.

equality has some huge downsides as well...

 

I am happy with Switch, as you described in your PDF.. Maybe you should post that here.

[luke warm]

playing nfb, the double is either a normal neg dbl or a gf hand... bidding at the 2 or 3 level shows (or should) from 6-11 hcp... i think it boils down to frequency... after an overcall, does responder have a game force hand or a 6-11 5pcs hand more frequently? if the latter, can it be shown in normal methods or not?

[Cascade]

We play negative free bids and I am very happy with how they work.

 

Some years ago I played negative free bids at the insistence of my partner and hated them. Then I went back to new suit forcing. A couple of years or so ago in a different partnership than previously we changed to negative free bids so that we could always make a bid with a moderate useful hand - less than a game-force is much more common than game-force hands in many auctions.

 

We play negative free bids at the two and three level. We like our negative free bid to show a six-card suit

 

Others here have complained about overloading the double. We have unloaded the double by making jump new suits as forcing, jumps to games to play and many jump and non-jump 4minor bids showing two suiters. This means that double is almost always a fairly normal shape (balanced or 5431 typically as the most extreme).

[sfbp]

playing nfb, the double is either a normal neg dbl or a gf hand... bidding at the 2 or 3 level shows (or should) from 6-11 hcp... i think it boils down to frequency... after an overcall, does responder have a game force hand or a 6-11 5pcs hand more frequently? if the latter, can it be shown in normal methods or not?

 

Does anyone apart from me disagree with that? I think it's overly simplistic.

 

Take the case of a normal takeout double.

 

1H X P 1S

P 2S

 

Does this show a game force? I think not, just some extras, and a sound double.

 

1H X P 1S

P 2D

 

This one shows a much stronger hand

 

Now to negative doubles (note if opener rebids 1N we can handle with XYZ easily)

 

1H (1S) X P

2C P 2D

 

Is there any reason this has to be game forcing? Why not just a normal 2-level freebid of the kind that most make, forcing for 1 round?

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 2S

 

Same, same

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 3C

 

Surely this is the way to show values. So what if you havent bid that 5-card spade suit yet? You have a game forcing hand right? If they push you past 3N by by bidding clubs you probably didnt want to be there.

 

One of the advantages of low-level auctions involving X and XX is that opponents feel obliged to bid their suits (for that matter it doesnt hurt you if pard bids his either). So now is much easier to gauge where you are going - there are only 4 suits and 40 points in the deck :)

 

Stephen

[luke warm]

well i think you left out what, to me, was an important piece - frequency... in any case, what would you expect responder to have after these bids?

 

1H (1S) X P

2C P 2D

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 2S

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 3C

[Impact]

I used to play negative free bids (for about 17 years) before giving them up for transfers in most cases.

 

IF you play negative free bids it is important to discriminate between the different hand-types and not overload the double more than you can help. I used:-

Double: standard negative with typically 4 cards in unbid major OR

strong single-suiter GF (rebid own new suit) OR

balanced GF lacking a stopper (rebid cue in their suit below 3NT)

 

Strong 2 suiters excluding opener's suit went via the immediate cuebid!

 

The last part sounds intuitively wrong - but worked astonishingly well over a period of time.

[luis]

I hate NFBs completely, when your side has the majority of the high cards you need to be descriptive otherwise you will be guessing whenever they preempt or sacrifice to their safest level of tricks.

 

Luis

[mikeh]

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.

[sfbp]

well i think you left out what, to me, was an important piece - frequency... in any case, what would you expect responder to have after these bids?

 

1H (1S) X P

2C P 2D

Good hand with 5+ ♦, forcing at least one round.

 

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 2S

Good hand with values for at least 3♥ or 3♠, probably no stopper in ♣

 

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 3C

 

Some sort of monster that wants to be in game even if opponents bid-em-up and even if no fit. If they bidemup we usually have a fit, or one of them is lying.

 

For frequency I think we might have to do something with BRBR. But positive freebids are less frequent than negative ones, as long as your negative ones are ANTI-FORCING. Of course 2/1 players like to have more of everything :) so you might have to raise the LOWER limit of the NFB so he feels better.

 

There are some hands which will be bid with a free bid in both systems and some with a double in both systems, but this is largely a matter of partnership style. A lot of information can be gained from the opponents' bidding. My feeling is bid a NFB on any hand that you actively want partner to pass, double on the rest.

[luke warm]

well i think you left out what, to me, was an important piece - frequency... in any case, what would you expect responder to have after these bids?

1H (1S) X P

2C P 2D

Good hand with 5+ ♦, forcing at least one round.

 

i actually wanted to know with a little more specificity the strength of the hand... anyway, how would it differ from

 

1h (1s) 2d? (i mean strength-wise)

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 2S

Good hand with values for at least 3♥ or 3♠, probably no stopper in ♣

and this one is different from

 

1h (2c) 2s

 

in what way? just trying to understand, stephen, not arguing

 

1H (2C) X P

2H P 3C

Some sort of monster that wants to be in game even if opponents bid-em-up and even if no fit. If they bidemup we usually have a fit, or one of them is lying.

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

 

1h (2c) 3c

 

My feeling is bid a NFB on any hand that you actively want partner to pass, double on the rest.

well the level matters, of course, but i see the nfb as not being a bar bid necessarily, just limited in strength... for example, this bidding would show 8/9-11

 

1s (2h) 3d

 

since it's at the 3 level...

[sfbp]

(sfbp @ May 1 2006, 06:54 PM)

well i think you left out what, to me, was an important piece - frequency... in any case, what would you expect responder to have after these bids?

 

 

1H (1S) X P

2C P 2D

 

Good hand with 5+ ♦, forcing at least one round.

 

i actually wanted to know with a little more specificity the strength of the hand... anyway, how would it differ from

 

1h (1s) 2d? (i mean strength-wise)

Well I would say it (double and bid) was round about the strength of a positive free bid, ie 11 points+ and 5 diamonds.

 

The nfb equivalent can be as weak as you like. Especially if you are reasonably sure pard will pass.

 

After doubling, there is not much worry about point count

a. you know how many hearts you have, and depending on pard's rebid you have a pretty good idea whether you can play in 3 or 4 hearts (or not). LOTT and all that.

b. if the opps bid it just gives you information, and you simply have to know which Xes of their bids are penalty and which takeout.

 

The inbetween hands where you double first are rather like the situation with game trial bids after 1M (P) 2M. You don't have an invitational hand, and pard doesn't have an unbalanced 16 count. So now your ability to bid game (on borderline hands) depends on inferring the usefulness of the high cards you hold. PASS is a wonderful bid :)

 

Of course, if you cannot depend on pard opening all 5332 hands (and thereby ruling them out) with 15-17 as 1NT there might be problems. I showed conclusively that opening 1NT is a winner on those all the time (most people will open 1NT on 5332 minor), as has long been claimed by Larry Cohen and others. The tricky case is probably when both of you are 5431. But in this case you know you don't have a major fit. If opponents do NOT raise their overcall, then you have time to investigate stops for NT. The other point is that you have to have agreements where you don't introduce 4-card suits in competition, but always double.

 

I suspect much of the aversion to NFB may have arisen before cuebids showing support, and 1NT on 5M, became common practice.

 

Probably muddled explanation - but I believe it works in practice. Remember the hands where you have game or slam are relatively infrequent (unless someone has been cooking the hands).

 

What we found, by experiment, is that no matter how good openers hand is in terms of fit, pass is usually good. Only the unbalanced hands just short of 2C should consider raising a NFB most of the time (even with 4 card support), unless opener is 5-5 and responder hit the secondary 5-bagger, in which case bidding our side up becomes obvious.

 

It sounds like I'm heading to the flip side of Robson/Segal/fitjumps doesn't it? Antiforcing nonfit nonjumps :)

 

Stephen

[sfbp]

well the level matters, of course, but i see the nfb as not being a bar bid necessarily, just limited in strength... for example, this bidding would show 8/9-11

 

1s (2h) 3d

 

since it's at the 3 level...

 

I play this 3d bid as forcing. Absolutely no 3-level NFB's.

[sfbp]

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]

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.