Negative Free Bids & Fit jumps

[jillybean]

Hello :) Here's a hand from our Sectional.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqthkj74d3cakt975&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d1h]133|200[/hv]

 

For me, 2♣ is non forcing and 3♣ a fit jump.

 

For those of you who play NFB, do you also play fit jumps? Are fit jumps usually only played after partner opens a major?

How do you handle this hand?

 

For those of you who are going to tell me I shouldn't play so much system, thanks. You have a very valid point but I do play a lot

of systems, I enjoy it, it's part of the fun and challenge of the game. Please can we keep this on the topic of NFB and FJ.

[whereagles]

3NT wtp?

[gordontd]

With those agreements it's normal to start with double on game-forcing hands.

[helene_t]

I would prefer to play 3♣ as natural GF. Without a natural GF 3♣ I would have to dbl with a strong hand that couldn't bid 3NT. And then it is probably also right to double with this hand. We can always bid 3NT later.

[broze]

It isn't so much that you are playing too much system, it's that if you don't know what to do one hands like this then you don't really know what your system is.

[broze]

As Gordon says if you are fully on board with NFBs, you start GF hands with a double.

 

Personally when I have played NFBs I have not played fit jumps (except in some specifically discussed auctions - this not being one of them). I also do not play NFBs in the minors so the only relevant auctions are 1m-(1S)-2H and 1M-(2m)-2oM.

 

Also if you play them after 1D-(2C) or 1C-(2D)- I suggest you change. A double in this auction is already extremely strained and having to pile every single-suited GF hand in there as well as invitational and competitive hands with one or both four card Majors just so you can stop in 2M will make these auctions very difficult for you.

[jogs]

Only two of a major should be used for NFB. All other non-jump bids in contested auctions are better served as forcing. 3/4 of the suit contracts are played in the majors. You are less likely to buy the contract in the minors and you must bid one level higher.

[akwoo]

Part of playing NFBs is that the negative double can be made without (the) unbid major(s) with a game-forcing hand. So this hand doubles. Over a non-club bid by partner, bidding clubs at the next level shows a game-forcing hand with clubs (and cancels any implications about unbid majors).

[Finch]

When I play NFBs, I don't play fit jumps as well. So here I would did 3!C natural and game forcing.

[jillybean]

I forgot double can show this type of hand and it seems like we need to look at the wisdom of playing NFB and FJ.

 

Thanks!

[whereagles]

NFBs leave you with an omnibus double, which is very vulnerable to preemption. When playing natural systems, if stuff gets competitive, responder should strive to bid his hand in one go. NFB violates this principle by dumping all into the dbl, thus requiring several rounds of bidding to clear it up.

 

It is playable, but can leave you with some hard guesses while giving little in exchange.

[mikeh]

I forgot double can show this type of hand and it seems like we need to look at the wisdom of playing NFB and JS.

 

Thanks!

I experimented with NFB many years ago and came to the realization that they are great for partscore competition but disastrous for accurate slam bidding and questionable for accurate game bidding. Thus if, like me, your focus is on imp competition, they seem like the 'wrong' system.

 

However, if your view differs, or if you focus mostly on mps, then you need, as you note, to think about how different parts of your methods mesh.

 

There is nothing wrong with lots of system, but it is essential to understand that every gadget carries a cost: you lose the previous meaning of the call, so you need to find another way of describing that now lost hand, and here using NFB perhaps suggests that you need 3♣ as natural, strong. On this hand, the odds that LHO can or will pre-empt in hearts is almost non-existent, but what if he jumped in spades? And of course on other hands, the need to double on a power one suiter can lead to really bad auctions later.

[jogs]

I experimented with NFB many years ago and came to the realization that they are great for partscore competition but disastrous for accurate slam bidding and questionable for accurate game bidding. Thus if, like me, your focus is on imp competition, they seem like the 'wrong' system.

 

Non forcing doesn't mean partner must pass. Perhaps it is time to rethink hand strength. Bid up to your level of trumps. The extra trump is worth an extra trick.

 

♠ xx ♥ Qxxx ♦ AKxx ♣ Kxx

 

As dealer you open 1♦

 

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - pass

??

 

Do not pass. This is not a minimum. Bid 3♥.

 

♠ xxx ♥ AKxxxx ♦ xx ♣ Qx or

♠ xxx ♥ AKxxx ♦ xx ♣ Axx

 

is sufficient for 4♥ to be a favorite.

[Zelandakh]

On this auction you have plenty of options:

 

1. give up 2♣ as a NFB

2. give up 3♣ as a FJS

3. X with a good hand and live with the ambiguity

4. play X as 4+ spades and use 1♠ to cover (inter alia) good hands with clubs

 

All have pros and cons. You just have to agree something and accept whichever disadvantage it gives.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

one option is to play transfer responses after intervention, this allowes you to bid forcing /

nonforcing single suited hands.

 

We played NFBs, before we switched to transfers, and we (still) play fit (non) jumps, and it works reasonably

well. The question is always, what fit means, sometimes it is just tolerance, which is not 100% the same.

Fit Jumps after partner opened a possible short minor, are rare, we play it for consistency reasons,

keeps life simple.

 

With the given hand, you have no real problem, start with X, if they sac. with 4H, you wont stop them,

and the exploration of 6C is not much easier, even assuming that you already showed gf values with clubs,

of course it would be better, but not by a huge degree.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[msjennifer]

With those agreements it's normal to start with double on game-forcing hands.

Yes indeed! With all those advertised restrictions the only agreement left is to make a double and then bid the appropriate game or even a slam if partner does show life.I entirely agree with you.

[msjennifer]

Me and my partner do not play a bid of 3 clubs as fit jump but a natural Game Force requesting partner to bid naturally neglecting the interference totally.

[Vampyr]

Do not pass. This is not a minimum. Bid 3♥.

 

♠ xxx ♥ AKxxxx ♦ xx ♣ Qx or

♠ xxx ♥ AKxxx ♦ xx ♣ Axx

 

is sufficient for 4♥ to be a favorite.

 

I don't play NFBs, but somehow I don't think these hands qualify. Certainly not the second one.

[akwoo]

I don't play NFBs, but somehow I don't think these hands qualify. Certainly not the second one.

 

Different people play them differently. When I played them (in the context of a K-S system), they were about good 7 to bad 12 - the defined minimum was being willing to play in 2N opposite 15-17 balanced and the defined maximum was anything short of game forcing. By those standards, both hands qualify.

[Vampyr]

Different people play them differently. When I played them (in the context of a K-S system), they were about good 7 to bad 12 - the defined minimum was being willing to play in 2N opposite 15-17 balanced and the defined maximum was anything short of game forcing. By those standards, both hands qualify.

 

Is it common for NFBidders to define the double as GF?

[bdegrande]

Playing negative free bids, strong hands without a fit would start with a double. I personally don't like fit showing jumps, but given those agreements, double is the normal bid, the other options would be 2♥ (if that doesn't promise a fit) or 3NT. Given the placement of the heart honors, I think I would bid 3NT.

[SixOfWands]

I'm voting for 3NT.

 

You have the values, you have a double stop in hearts.

Factors in favor of bidding 3NT include:

 

Without any more bidding to direct them W may settle on a heart lead in which case you are likely to make 3NT.

If you don't bid 3NT your partner may bid it with A or K of spades. E may not lead his possibly poor heart suit and a spade lead could defeat the contract.

Partner could turn up with Jxx or 9xxx in spades meaning you have a stop in spades but will never find it if you start with a double.

With W on lead he could under lead AKxxx and you have a stop!

If you double, W may well bid spades and opener could end up in 3NT. When this happens E will probably lead a spade lead and you are likely to go down.

If your partner doesn't hold the A or K of spades you will not make 5C either losing two spades and the AH.

 

Seems quite clear on this line of thought.... :rolleyes:

[jogs]

Is it common for NFBidders to define the double as GF?

 

Absolutely not.

 

1♦ - 1♠ - X

 

♠ xx ♥ Kxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ xxxx

 

I'm doubling and planning to pass any rebid.

 

The double followed by a rebid in a new suit promises an opening hand. Still with a misfit we may choose to pass under game.

[beowulf]

There's nothing inconsistent with NFBs and FSJs. I play them both. NFBs are good when you have a competitive hand with a decent suit. As noted elsewhere this hand simply doubles and awaits developments. The most likely game here is 3NT, although 6♣ is still possible. I doubt if they will be preempting in hearts but if they do we will be well placed to whack them.

 

There are times when negative free bids are not the perfect system for a hand, just as there are times when a forcing response is not best. Personally, I like to be able to compete more. Playing the hand when it's right is often worth about the same number of IMPs as a game bonus might be.

[jogs]

This is the negative freebid article by Karen Walker.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=negative%20free%20bids%20karen%20walker

This is a discussion of negative freebids started by Ryan Wessels on Bridge Winners.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/negative-freebids/

 

There doesn't seem to be wide concensus on what range constitutes a negative freebid. Seems like any partnership playing the treatment must spend time discussing and agreeing on the details. Do not play negative freebids with a pickup partner. His view on the treatment may vastly differ from yours.

Here's my take. Even in contested auctions most partnerships still give finding a major suit game top priority. Negative freebids are better for finding the best strain. If you are willing to accept less precise game bidding for the higher frequency of being in the best strain, then give negative freebids a try.

First separate 5 card suits hands from 6 card suits. With a 5 card suit the range should be 6 to 11 HCP. At the bottom of the range(6-8) the suit must be at least KQxxx. With a 6 card suit or longer the range is lowered to 4-9 HCP. At the bottom of this range(4-6) the suit should be QJTxxx or better. Holding a singleton makes NFB more attractive.

Karen Walker focuses on the 1m-(1♠)-2♥ auction. 1m-(1♠)-X allows opponents to preempt your side with a 2♠ call. Now you must decide whether the hearts are worth introducing at the 3 level. NFB allows you to introduce the suit on the two level.

1♦-(2♣). There is a family of auctions where opponents overcall at the 2 level. On these auctions there is a very small chance of you ever holding a near opening hand. The NFB is more pragmatic. These NFB hands occur with much higher frequency.

In the Bridge Winners' discussion Kit Woolsey says he has found little value in playing 2 of a minor as NF. He only plays 2 of a major as nfb.

Fit jump shifts are compatible with NFB.

1♣-(1♦)

1♣-(1♥)

1♦-(1♥)

On these auctions one of a major is forcing. Two of a major can be fit jump. There are no NFB auctions from these starts.

 

Remember that non forcing doesn't mean shutout. Opener should usually raise with 4 card support.