[Cyberyeti]

This is a general question about philosophy of bidding that I'll illustrate with an example.

---

Partner opens 2♣ huge or 22+ bal.

You in style bid 3♦ natural positive

Partner bids 4♥

You have 2 agreements:

2♣ followed by a jump shows a solid suit

and

kickback so this could be agreeing diamonds and asking for aces

I bid 4♠ which would be keycard if he has the big hand with hearts, or show 0/3 keycards to kickback (I shouldn't have 0 for a 3♦ response), partner bid 5♦, 2 without to kickback, not possible with a solid suit, he must have the Q or signoff opposite 0 which is what we do in style and I'm on a guess, I know we have all the keycards, but it's just possible partner has ♦Kxx. I thought for a long time and settled for 6♦, if I'd bid 7 I'd have made it, partner had:

---

And the normal play of K then J picks up the Qx onside. Opps opened a 20-22 2N and failed to bid a slam.

We've now agreed that 2♣-3♣-4♦ and 2♣-3♦-4♥ are solid suits and we'll play minorwood in these auctions only.

When you meet a situation like this, do you attempt to guess and commit to one of the meanings, or do you try to find a flexible bid which might not be right, but may allow you or partner to determine which of the alternatives you/he's gone for ?

[bluecalm]

I know this is not very helpful but imo if you play stuff like kicback or minorwood you need detailed exhaustive agreements about when they apply. I can't imagine anybody but full time pros playing those without inflicting major damage to themselves and even then it's unclear if those are good conventions (I believe there isn't one elite pair outside NA who play kickback or minorwood but even if there is it's very uncommon).

Now to the topic: I assign some % to likelyhood of my partner partner having every variant (according to my best guess) and try to make decision which maximizes our payoff opposite such described range with the assumption that partner will stick to w/e intention he had while making his first problem bid.

[Codo]

An easy(?) but not perfect solution:
Use kickback just after you have shown a fit- so 2 ♣ 3 ♦ 4♦.

The downside: You ask the strong hand. But sometimes- as in your example this is not always a disadvantage- it is as hard to show extra distribution (like the 6. diamond here) as all values (the queens in openers hand).

I use kickback only after some well defined 2 in a suit openings (2 ♣ is one of them), but it works okay so far. (A rare bird anyway...)

[gnasher]

Here's another unhelpful response: I try to avoid making ambiguous bids like your partner's 4♥.

On his actual hand, I'd have bid 4♦ rather than 4♥, not only because 4♥ is ambiguous but also because he doesn't have a spade control. With solid hearts, I'd have bid 3♥ and hoped for the best.

[bluecalm]

Btw, why bid 3D with that ? Just bid 2D and wait for developments, you have good hand opposite most of his possible hands and there is no reason to think you belong in diamonds opposite unbal hand (opposite bal you wil have transfers or what not anyway) but 3D makes subsequent bidding very difficult.

[Cyberyeti]

bluecalm, on 2012-March-28, 07:22, said:

Btw, why bid 3D with that ? Just bid 2D and wait for developments, you have good hand opposite most of his possible hands and there is no reason to think you belong in diamonds opposite unbal hand (opposite bal you wil have transfers or what not anyway) but 3D makes subsequent bidding very difficult.

Old fashioned I know, but we still use the old 2♦ neg, 2♥ natural positive structure, and we will almost never (I'd consider it with Ax, Ax, xxxxx, xxxx, but prob bid 2N) give a negative with 2 aces, certainly not with a respectable suit and an unbalanced hand.

In this example, partner would rebid 2N over 2♦ over which I can only show my diamonds at the 4 level by my methods so I don't gain much.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-28, 06:34, said:

This is a general question about philosophy of bidding that I'll illustrate with an example.

---

---

I wouldn't respond 3D w/A-6th .... just 2D! waiting ( but positive ; whereas 2H! would be the immediate negative ):

2C - 2D!
2NT - 3S! ( now you can use the May 2006 ACBL treatment for a long Diam hand, slammish )
3NT ( forced ) - 4D! ( long Diam but obviously no 2-of-the-top-3 honors because of NO 3D! initial response )
?? ( my replies as if RKC were asked):
..4NT = not interested ( most likely x x or x x x .. ie NO ♦ honor )
.. 4H = 0/3
.. 4S = 1/4
.. 5C = 2 - ♦Q
.. 5D = 2 + ♦Q

After:
4H ( 0/3 ) - 4S ( ♦Q ask )
5D ( no ♦Q or 4 cards ) - 6D

[jogs]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-March-28, 06:34, said:

You have 2 agreements:

2♣ followed by a jump shows a solid suit

---

Your partner and I disagree on what constitutes a solid suit.
4♥ should show AKQJxx or AKQxxxx.

[Zelandakh]

You could use the method I post here from time to time to automatically resolve this kind of thing too. In this, if it is logical for 4m+1 to be natural then it is. Thus Kickback is only on when it is 100% clear. Instead, bidding 4m where this eastablishes the fit is a slam try or better. If declining the slam try partner will bid 4m+1; if accepting they will give key card responses starting with 4m+2 (exactly as if Kickback had been bid). After a decline, a bid of 4m+2 (next step) is now unambiguously RKCB. One step has been lost in comparison with Kickback in this case but we have also avoided any accidents. This compromise method is probably not an expert-level convention but I think it is excellent for those who want to get the advantages of Kickback without having the detailed agreements of a top pair.

As for what I do. I take my best guess and bid accordingly but if I have a reasonable course of action that caters to more than one meaning and thereby allows me to resolve the ambiguity then I would naturally tend to choose that. (IANAE)

[awm]

It doesn't make that much sense to me to jump to 4M to show a solid suit. My rule for kickback is its on if either: 1. Suit is clearly agreed or 4m+1 is otherwise not possibly a suit 2. 4m+1 was a jump and 3m+1 would've been forcing.

Second case seems to apply here. With that said I'd bid 4d on openers hand.

[Fluffy]

I used to love this squences where if you meant that then I have that and if you meant another thing I am asking whatever.

Now I have better agreements so don´t have them nearly as always, more often with clients.

With clients I always tell them the same: make whatever assumption you want and bid accordingly!

Why? because I am the one who makes the if he takes this as this then he will answer liek that and if he takes it this other way blablabla. The problem is, the students often just don´t understand the bids and don´t even try to find a single useful explanation and bid whatever.

[Cyberyeti]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-March-28, 08:33, said:

I wouldn't respond 3D w/A-6th .... just 2D! waiting ( but positive ; whereas 2H! would be the immediate negative ):

2C - 2D!
2NT - 3S! ( now you can use the May 2006 ACBL treatment for a long Diam hand, slammish )
3NT ( forced ) - 4D! ( long Diam but obviously no 2-of-the-top-3 honors because of NO 3D! initial response )
?? ( my replies as if RKC were asked):
..4NT = not interested ( most likely x x or x x x .. ie NO ♦ honor )
.. 4H = 0/3
.. 4S = 1/4
.. 5C = 2 - ♦Q
.. 5D = 2 + ♦Q

After:
4H ( 0/3 ) - 4S ( ♦Q ask )
5D ( no ♦Q or 4 cards ) - 6D

The problem with this auction is that partner will have KQJxx, KQx, Kx, AQ10 and I'll be in the wrong slam from the wrong side (or not be in a slam when 6♠ is decent.

I had the option of showing the diamond suit over 2N in the same way as you, or ask for a 5 card major and show 5 diamonds. I decided responding 3♦ was better and am allowed to do this by system.

[han]

gnasher, on 2012-March-28, 07:11, said:

Here's another unhelpful response: I try to avoid making ambiguous bids like your partner's 4♥.

I think this is best. However, sometimes partner still makes bids and we don't know what it means. Usually we have some clue because we know our partners so well. And if we have no clue then there is often a call that allows for both possibilities and gives you a chance to find out.

If we have no clue and no non-committal bid then we guess and yell at partner all the way home.

[JLOGIC]

I do not think it's worth it to play kickback if an auction as simple as this is "ambiguous." Yes, I'm all for avoiding ambiguous bids, but I think it is important to discuss a lot of auctions and have good rules to make as few auctions as possible ambiguous when playing kickback. For instance, this one would be kickback to me because we are in a forcing auction and partner could bid 3 hearts forcing and has not yet bid hearts in the auction.

I do not know if "2C followed by jumping in a suit" is actually a good rule, since jumping to 4M over 3m in order to just show a solid suit while wasting so much room does not seem very useful. Surely there are many many hands with a solid suit that would not be able to jump to 4M over 3m because it's non forcing and the hand would be too good.

I would amend my agreements to dictate that kickback rules supersede other rules, and I would not play kickback without good kickback rules. Even if you aren't having misunderstandings, just thinking many auctions would be ambiguous and thus you cannot make certain bids ever will hurt your auctions a lot. We have all been in cuebidding sequences where we are not sure which bid would be keycard, so we can't bid it, but we are cramped for space and thus it stops us from being able to cuebid anything, and even if we do partner might think we are denying a certain control or something, so we just jump to slam or guess...those situations need to be avoided. And of course if you are having regular keycard accidents it's a disaster.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-29, 13:47, said:

I do not know if "2C followed by jumping in a suit" is actually a good rule, since jumping to 4M over 3m in order to just show a solid suit while wasting so much room does not seem very useful. Surely there are many many hands with a solid suit that would not be able to jump to 4M over 3m because it's non forcing and the hand would be too good.

You could safely play it as forcing to five of the major. A traditional positive opposite a 2♣ opening, with a trump suit that's known to be solid, should be safe at the five level.

[mgoetze]

bluecalm, on 2012-March-28, 06:49, said:

I know this is not very helpful but imo if you play stuff like kicback or minorwood you need detailed exhaustive agreements about when they apply. I can't imagine anybody but full time pros playing those without inflicting major damage to themselves and even then it's unclear if those are good conventions (I believe there isn't one elite pair outside NA who play kickback or minorwood but even if there is it's very uncommon).

I agree with everything you wrote about kickback.

I disagree with everything you wrote about minorwood.

[Cyberyeti]

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-29, 13:47, said:

I do not think it's worth it to play kickback if an auction as simple as this is "ambiguous." Yes, I'm all for avoiding ambiguous bids, but I think it is important to discuss a lot of auctions and have good rules to make as few auctions as possible ambiguous when playing kickback. For instance, this one would be kickback to me because we are in a forcing auction and partner could bid 3 hearts forcing and has not yet bid hearts in the auction.

I do not know if "2C followed by jumping in a suit" is actually a good rule, since jumping to 4M over 3m in order to just show a solid suit while wasting so much room does not seem very useful. Surely there are many many hands with a solid suit that would not be able to jump to 4M over 3m because it's non forcing and the hand would be too good.

I would amend my agreements to dictate that kickback rules supersede other rules, and I would not play kickback without good kickback rules. Even if you aren't having misunderstandings, just thinking many auctions would be ambiguous and thus you cannot make certain bids ever will hurt your auctions a lot. We have all been in cuebidding sequences where we are not sure which bid would be keycard, so we can't bid it, but we are cramped for space and thus it stops us from being able to cuebid anything, and even if we do partner might think we are denying a certain control or something, so we just jump to slam or guess...those situations need to be avoided. And of course if you are having regular keycard accidents it's a disaster.

As Gnasher says, 2♣-positive-4M is forcing. One I remember from a teams of 8 where we shouldn't have been but were the only people to bid a grand was AKQxxxxx, KQ10x, x, void opposite x, A, AKxxx, Axxxxx went 2♣-3♣-4♠-7N, they didn't lead a spade to make me discard A♥.

We've been playing kickback a long time and have plenty of agreements about it. We do have occasional mishaps but only on one occasion in 10+ years has it been fatal. We tend to find we go beyond game a lot more often than almost all local pairs and show a heavy plus on the slam hands unless some good slams go off. Most of the time, as in this case if we don't know what we're doing, we're both aware the auction is ambiguous and we at least arrive somewhere sensible.