Negative free bid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Negative free bid is a contract bridge treatment whereby a free bid by responder over an opponent's overcall shows a long suit in a weak hand and is not forcing. This is in contrast with standard treatment, where a free bid can show unlimited values and is unconditionally forcing. The treatment is a relatively recent invention, and has become quite popular, especially in expert circles.
Negative free bids resolve relatively frequent situations where the responder holds a long suit with which he would like to compete for a partscore, but is deprived from bidding it by opponent's overcall.
| West | North | East | South |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♦ | 1♠ | ? |
For example, if South holds: ♠ 86 ♥ KJ10852 ♦ K6 ♣ 532, partner opens 1♦ and East overcalls 1♠, he couldn't bid 2♥ in standard methods, as it would show 10+ high-card points, and a negative double would be too off-shape. With NFB treatment in effect though, he can bid 2♥ which the partner may pass (unless she has extra values and support, or an excellent suit of her own without tolerance for hearts).
However, as a corollary, negative free bids affect the scope of negative double; if the hand is suitable for "standard" forcing free bid (10-11+ points), a negative double has to be made first and the suit bid only in the next round. Thus, the negative double can be made with the following types of hand:
- A weakish hand with unbid suits (unbid major)
- A stronger hand with unbid suits
- A strong (opening bid or more) one-suited hand.
This can sometimes allow the opponents to preempt effectively.
| West | North | East | South |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1♦ | 1♥ | Dbl | 4♥ |
| ? |
For example, West, holding: ♠ KJ103 ♥ J8 ♦ AKQ104 ♣ J2, after this auction is in an awkward situation — he doesn't know whether partner has spades or not; whether South was bidding to make or to sacrifice — is it correct to double, bid 4♠ or pass?
See also
External links
- Alan Truscott's column in New York Times
- 5-part series by Karen Walker that originally appeared in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin, Jan-May 2005
- Discussion of merits