[Hanoi5]

---

Mp's. (Any difference if imp's?).

[rogerclee]

This hand is pretty complicated, but the most important thing to realize is that 3C is a ridiculous underbid.

4C is too much, partner didn't promise anything and east has a lot of defense against 3H.

Getting to 6C is very hard, I think the auction should start

1D 1H P 2H
X P 3H P
4C P 4S P (4S can't be an offer to play on this auction)

If east has last train (4N) available, then that's perfect, but for most partnerships he has to either drive to slam or sign off. It's not obvious to me what's right, a hand like Kx xxx xxx KQxxx is on a spade hook through the heart raiser and a bit more, but a hand like Kxx xxx xx KQxxx is quite a good slam, and Kxx xxx xx KJxxx is a marginally good slam.

[JLOGIC]

3C is awful.

If my options were to bid 6C or 3C I would easily choose 6C. Partner's double shows significant extras once you have passed 1H, he will not double with a 4144 13 count. But opposite a 4144 13 count you should have good play for game, I mean Axxx x Axxx Axxx is a perfecta but thats a 12 count and not even close to a double of 2H.

Once partner freely raises to 4C after I have still shown nothing, I would try to get to 7, and end up in 6 when partner can't bid 5H(I don't think 4N can be keycard unfortunately, assuming all of our bidding has been rational to that point, it should just be a slam try with no spade control).

Not sure I agree with clee that 4C is a bad bid, our partner who bid 3C always or almost always has 5 clubs imo (3424 is the only questionable shape). Our hand is pretty strong opposite a hand with 5 clubs, specifically our 4th club is huge and our prime cards. xxx xxx xx Kxxxx is a very reasonable 5C game. It is an aggressive bid though, but I like it.

I don't see anything wrong with 1D 1H p 2H X p 5C tbh. It shows the nature of our hand pretty well, and we're always going to game. We had 4C available, so 5C is quite strong Partner has an easy 6C bid over that. If you start with 3H your intentions on the hand might become murky. Sometimes simpler is better.

[whereagles]

3C is fine if you're playing a lebensohl 2NT here. Otherwise agree it's an underbid.

Still, the spade K and heart stiff are the key and I'm not so sure how one could find those. If they were both in the same hand it would be easier. As it is it's not easy.

[rogerclee]

 whereagles, on 2011-January-12, 05:11, said:

3C is fine if you're playing a lebensohl 2NT here.

I disagree!

[Fluffy]

I would use a NFB of 2♣ opposite wich east might just bid straight keycard.

I know most experts on the forums hate negative free bids, I trust their words, but I would like to hear some explanations.

[OleBerg]

If it's MP's and Lebensohl is in use, I could be brought to accept 3♣, as partner will often stretch to double here. But it wouldn't be my choice, 4♣ would.

At IMP's, where;

1) Partner will not stretch as much to double
2) Game-bonus is more important

I'd definitely bid no less than 4♣.

[OleBerg]

 Fluffy, on 2011-January-12, 06:16, said:

I would use a NFB of 2♣ opposite wich east might just bid straight keycard.

I know most experts on the forums hate negative free bids, I trust their words, but I would like to hear some explanations.

NFB's are fine when you have the hand. It's the distortion of your other hands that is a problem.

Whenever you have a strong hand without primary fit for partner, you have to double, and are very vulnerable to preempts/support from fourth hand.
When NFB's were invented, people didn't preempt/support as agressively as they do today, so in those days they worked better.

I don't play much MP's, but I'd imagine they would have more virtue there. A scheme like this (for MP's) looks good to me:

1♥ - (2♣) -

X = Normal negative double, or strong with spades.
2♦ = Normal forcing 2♦ bid.
2♥ = Support.
2♠ = NFB.
3♠ = Forcing with spades, sets spades as thrumph (unless we end in NT).

I'd imagine being able to make a NFB with a major-suit (especially spades) would be worth quite some MP's.

[jillybean]

I would double after 1♦ (1♥) , not pass.
I'm happy to pass a 1♠ bid by partner but I am not ready to surrender the auction to the opps.

[han]

3C?

[Phil]

Even if I played Lebensohl / good/bad in response to the double of 2♥, 3♣ is still an underbid. And not playing this tool 3♣ is a huge underbid. I like 4♣, but 3♥--> 4♣ might be warranted. I think you'll get to slam after this start.

[mfa1010]

What would 4♣ mean if lebensohl applies? Almost forcing, or...?

(2♥)-X-(p)-4♣ would be forcing, right?

The right value bid here without lebensohl would be 5♣, but it would be nice to be able to bid 4♣ to facilitate slam bidding.

[Phil]

 mfa1010, on 2011-January-12, 12:44, said:

What would 4♣ mean if lebensohl applies? Almost forcing, or...?

(2♥)-X-(p)-4♣ would be forcing, right?

The right value bid here without lebensohl would be 5♣, but it would be nice to be able to bid 4♣ to facilitate slam bidding.

While I'm not trying to contradict what was said in the other thread where we had the choice of 2N, 3♣ and 4♣, without discussion, I think the only was that 4♣ can be passed in this thread is that if Opener does not have a real double of 2♥.

Which is why, perhaps, above I said that 4♣ does not do justice to this hand.

[Cascade]

 Fluffy, on 2011-January-12, 06:16, said:

I would use a NFB of 2♣ opposite wich east might just bid straight keycard.

I know most experts on the forums hate negative free bids, I trust their words, but I would like to hear some explanations.

Negative Free Bids are great!!!

My overriding impression from playing them for a number of years are the many hands where we bid game in three bids - opening (overcall) negative free bid (anything) game. These hands are high frequency (in terms of hcp) high trick potential and are the most dangerous to miss out on when the auction is preempted. With more values you frequently have the values to compete at a higher level in a preempted auction so the effect of the preempt is less especially if as you can take out some of the stronger hands and assign them to other bids (jumps) directly over the interference.

Our successes have included a screaming top board against World Pairs Champion Matthew Granovetter where after an auction like the pattern above and partner tabled a fitting but otherwise relatively unremarkable opening bid he risked everything to defeat our contract reasoning that the field would not be in this game and handed us two overtricks when he could have cashed for just making.

Our record is a bid and made grand slam in a suit that was not mentioned at other tables (because the hand was two weak for a forcing 2♣ over 1♠) as the opponents bid to 4♠. This occurred in a National Trial.

Negative Free Bids are great!!!

I definitely would bid 2♣ non forcing on the hand given here and then getting to 6♣ would be relatively routine.

[whereagles]

negative free bids are TEH EVIL. At least around here they are a permanent source of confusion lol

[MrAce]

 Cascade, on 2011-January-12, 13:16, said:

Negative Free Bids are great!!!

My overriding impression from playing them for a number of years are the many hands where we bid game in three bids - opening (overcall) negative free bid (anything) game. These hands are high frequency (in terms of hcp) high trick potential and are the most dangerous to miss out on when the auction is preempted. With more values you frequently have the values to compete at a higher level in a preempted auction so the effect of the preempt is less especially if as you can take out some of the stronger hands and assign them to other bids (jumps) directly over the interference.

Our successes have included a screaming top board against World Pairs Champion Matthew Granovetter where after an auction like the pattern above and partner tabled a fitting but otherwise relatively unremarkable opening bid he risked everything to defeat our contract reasoning that the field would not be in this game and handed us two overtricks when he could have cashed for just making.

Our record is a bid and made grand slam in a suit that was not mentioned at other tables (because the hand was two weak for a forcing 2♣ over 1♠) as the opponents bid to 4♠. This occurred in a National Trial.

Negative Free Bids are great!!!

I definitely would bid 2♣ non forcing on the hand given here and then getting to 6♣ would be relatively routine.

They both have down and upsides, and i think the overcall and preempt style of the field what makes one of them more efficient than the other.
What u say may work better in USA, where overcalls are extremely sound and preempts are only couple tricks less than a 2♣ opener. I also played neg free bids, they dont work very good against agressive overcallers/ preempts.

I like the STRONG vs WEAK and WEAK vs STRONG version, which optimizes the usage of it and applies only when opponents overcall at 2 level.

1♦ - 2♥- 2♠ positive free bid. (when opponent's bid is weak u likely will have good hands)
1♦-2♣-2♠ negative free bid. (when opp bid shows a good hand, u likely will have less strength and still be able to show ur decent 6 cards suit)
All 1x-1y-2z are forcing as well as all new suits at 3 level.

[Cyberyeti]

I have no problem in style with a lebensohl "good" 3♣, but I would bid 4♠ (1st/2nd round control) over 4♥ and the auction would proceed 4N-5♦-6♣.

[Cascade]

 MrAce, on 2011-January-12, 15:33, said:

They both have down and upsides

Of course. This is too often overlooked in many of these system debates. The reality is that you have the same number of bids to describe the same number of hands. If your methods cater reasonably to the vast majority of hands you cannot be significantly worse off than another method that also caters to the vast majority of hands.

I think that negative free bids are an improvement on standard but I dont have more than anecdotal evidence for that but I would be very surprised if they were significantly worse than forcing free bids.

[mike777]

"BridgeMatters: Negative Free Bids in competitive auctions - do you like them in standard or
just with a strong club base?
Eric Rodwell: It is something that I only play with a couple of partners. It is difficult to play
because you have a lot of trouble clarifying the better hands. If you just put everything in an
omnibus multi-meaning negative double, and then have the eventual three level jump raise by
the opponents, you are just going to have terrible trouble sorting it out. Playing standard, I
definitely don’t like them. I just want to be able to make my forcing free bid. The only time I play
them is playing a strong club system where my partner’s hand is limited. As for . . . Negative
Free Bids, I recommend not using them."


Side note as a nonexpert I play them in a 2/1 system where partner opens lite and often will have a minimum hand.


http://www.bridgebas...106#entry522106

[mfa1010]

I have always thought badly about NFB's and never wanted to play them. For the reasons given by other posters (and Rodwell) and because my opponents always seem to have so many trouble with them, even decent opponents. Mostly with the omnibus double, but also when one bids a NFB with QTxxx and the other passes with a small singleton and stuff like that.
Since I have never given them a try myself I can't reasonably be too critical though.