[Bbradley62]

From a pairs tournament on BBO:

---

The 2♦ bid was not alerted; the explanation was provided when I asked immediately prior to my pass. Is this description typical for a negative free bid? Are those alertable?

[aguahombre]

I think they are alertable; but I cannot find where the damage is from the failure to alert. Your partner had no bid, and you got an explanation prior to your final pass ---in addition to having no balancing bid to make even if you didn't know.

[Bbradley62]

Thanks. I'm not claiming damage; these are "for future reference" questions.

I've never played nfb. Is this hand normally considered appropriate for that bid?

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-27, 23:04, said:

I've never played nfb. Is this hand normally considered appropriate for that bid?

Me neither...but it looks like a negative double to me.

[peachy]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-27, 22:50, said:

From a pairs tournament on BBO:

---

The 2♦ bid was not alerted; the explanation was provided when I asked immediately prior to my pass. Is this description typical for a negative free bid? Are those alertable?

If ACBL, then negative freebids are alertable. Don't know about other jurisdictions or BBO tourneys. I like the explanation, though perhaps if "nonforcing" were added to it, it would be 100% clear. Even as it is, it is much clearer in fact than "negative"

[shevek]

NFBs have had bad press for a while now. Better suited to strong club systems.
However, I still like them & this one looks fine, perhaps planning 2S over opener's 2H.
Double might have worked too but X (3C) 3H would be unwelcome. 2D NFB slows partner down.

[Flameous]

I'd say the range given is quite atypical. I would usually assume something like 8-12, maybe AK or KQJ 6th would also cut it. (NF but constructive)
Also I think this one is a clear negative double, better get the spades in.
I would hate much more that it went ... 2♦ (3♣) 3♥/P, and now we don't know about spades. I don't quite feel like bidding them on the three level.

[mgoetze]

Agree with Flameous (more like 7-11 for me than 8-12 but that's details), disagree with this being an interesting bridge hand.

[rhm]

NFB are quite common where I play and I like them, particularly if you believe in light openings. (Tell me how you would reach 2♦ otherwise)
And quite frankly in principle why should a bid have to be alerted when it is completely natural and non forcing.
I understand that bids which are very uncommon need to be alerted even if natural, but this depends where you play.
You do not alert Stayman, because everybody plays it, even though it has nothing to do with ♣. If somebody would play 2♣ over 1NT as natural he would have to alert it.

This makes the whole alert procedure fuzzy, because what is common tends to be answered according to your personal experience.

NFB, as I play it, are constructive but not forcing. So this hand qualifies. The only problem is the 4 card ♠ suit assuming you are not playing Flannery. However, playing NFB bids, if you double and partner rebids his ♥ you would have to pass, since if you play NFB a new suit after a negative double tends to be game forcing.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

I think NFB are not alertable here in the Netherlands but I don't understand the ever changing alert regulations.

Certainly agree that there was no damage.

[Phil]

Did you really overcall on this?

[Bbradley62]

Phil, on 2011-June-28, 13:14, said:

Did you really overcall on this?

Yeah, I really did.