kokish

[andy_h]

Apologies, I just wanted to see what versions people play over 2C-2D-2H. I searched for previous threads, but not sure what people found 'best'.

 

We currently play 2C-

2D: 4+

2H: Double Negative

2S/3C/3D/3H: positive, 6+ suit with 2 of top 3 honours

2NT: 5/5 majors GF

 

2C-2D-2H puppets to 2S, then

 

1.

       2NT=24+ bal

    3C/3D=H's and m

3H/3S/3NT= ?

 

2.

 2NT=24+bal

  3C=H's & D's

  3D=6+H's

  3H=H's & 4S

  3S=H's & C's

 3NT=6H322 NF

 

(Ignoring that responder 'doesn't have to bid the forced 2S')

[SoTired]

I have become disenchanted with 2H=super neg. It interferes with Kokish and wrong sides hearts.

 

Here is one way to play it:

2C 2D

...2S = nat, then 3S = responder can pass with bust

...2N = 22-24

...3C/3D = nat

...3H/3S = sets trump, GF, demands Q

...3N = 8.5 to 9.0 trick, gambling 3N

...2H -> 2S

......2N = 25+

......3m = H+m

......3H = responder can pass with bust

......3N = 9.5 - 10 trick, gambling 3N, with 2.5-3 stoppers

[Gerben42]

I have become disenchanted with 2H=super neg. It interferes with Kokish and wrong sides hearts.

 

Funny, I very much prefer this method. BTW I don't play Kokish either. Cannot remember when not having it has been a problem. OTOH having it can easily become a problem when you actually have ♥.

 

BTW did you know that 2♦ wrongsides ♦? Anything responder bids can be "wrong".

[blackshoe]

"2N=24+"

 

Is this forcing? Unlimited?

 

"2N=25+"

 

A bit better, but still, unlimited?

 

A 2N bid should imo have no more than a two point range.

 

I play control showing responses; 2H shows 2 controls. After Kokish:

 

2N=25-26 balanced, FG

3C/3D/3S=natural, unbalanced, 2nd suit (hearts is primary), FG

3H=natural, FG, implies 6 hearts.

[jdonn]

I have railed on this before but it makes NO SENSE to play 2♥ double negative with kokish, either one on its own is ok but together is illogical. It's when you have a double negative that's when partner most needs to show his GF balanced hand a level lower, and that's when partner is most likely to have that hand.

[mikeh]

I have railed on this before but it makes NO SENSE to play 2♥ double negative with kokish, either one on its own is ok but together is illogical. It's when you have a double negative that's when partner most needs to show his GF balanced hand a level lower, and that's when partner is most likely to have that hand.

That is simply untrue.

 

It MAY make more sense to play Kokish in a 'delayed second negative' method, but that doesn't mean that it make NO sense to play it with 2♥ 2nd negative.

 

Kokish isn't merely to allow one to get to bid 2N (eventually) with 25 hcp opposite a second negative response... where I have to bid 3N over 2♥.

 

Kokish is also excellent for defining quantitative hands in the slam zone, while allowing exploration of fit, etc, at a lower-than-non-kokish level when responder has values.

 

So, a thoughtful player weighs all of the pros and cons of 2♥ 2nd negative/kokish etc and opts for the approach that seems to him or her to offer the balance that suits his or her approach to the game. I am more than happy with kokish AND 2♥ 2nd negative. Yes, I would gain more from kokish if I abandoned 2♥ 2nd negative, but I find the advantages of the immediate second negative to outweigh the costs. Your experience and views may differ, but to say that it makes no sense to play both reveals that you are railing on a topic without having thought sufficiently about it B) (A failing I share all too often)

[kenrexford]

I know that this is not responsive, but it may nonetheless be of interest.

 

I am solidly convinced of the merits of a two-way strong opening structure, with 2♦ as a second strong opening with 4+ spades. Kokish, a valuable tool, is another reason for this, as is the double negative 2♥ call.

 

If a 2♣ opening will never feature a five-card spade suit (let alone 4) unless super strong balanced, then a few nice things develop.

 

First, after Kokish, Opener's 3♠ can show 6♥/3♠.

 

Second, Opener has a much better solution for the 2♥ double negative, namely an artificial 2♠ call to show hearts.

 

There are a lot more gains to this type of strain split between two bids. A strong 2♣ sequence creates more problems than can possibly be resolved with minor tweakings, IMO.

[jdonn]

Sorry I stand by "NO SENSE", and only agree with you in the sense that this is not synonymous with "never ever gains". Even if there is potential gain on quantitative slam auctions (and let's be honest, usually you would survive having those auctions a level higher, so the perceived gain is reduced), that is offset by loss when opener really has hearts and responder loses a shot to describe his hand. While this is true for any system with Kokish, the rub is that the heart hand is MUCH more common than the balanced hand when responder is game forcing. And you lose kokish altogether when responder is very weak, but THAT'S when you want it most since game is much dicier and it's more important to find your fits (but if you were on some, let's say, 4 count with 5322 you could pass a 3NT rebid and almost surely still make). So, where is the sense? B)

[mikeh]

Sorry, Josh, but I found your reply confusing and unconvincing.

 

1stly, you raise the idea that kokish can be problematic when opener has hearts: yes it can, but that is a wash.. it is a problem regardless of whether 2♦ was gf or neutral.. so this can hardly advance the merits of either approach.

 

Then you assert, as fact, that

the heart hand is MUCH more common than the balanced hand when responder is game forcing.

 

I have no idea where you got this from. You may even be correct, but I have never heard of any statistics that would demonstrate this. Indeed, everything I know suggests that 22+ 4432, 4333 and 5332 hands are overwhelmingly more frequent than heart-based 2♣ openers, altho individual figures will vary because light 2♣ openers will open more one and 2-suited heart hands with 2♣ than I would.

 

Then you point out something I already conceded: that kokish is advantageous when responder has a very weak hand and opener is balanced and would, in my method, have to rebid 3N. Yes, that IS a reason to play kokish and delayed 2nd negative, but how on earth is that a reason NOT to play kokish IF one plays immediate second negative?

 

What it comes down to is that we are both arguing (I think) that kokish is worth playing. You and I both think that it helps to play it in the context of a delayed 2nd negative because of the chance of responder being weak. I personally think that the cost of playing a delayed second negative on the hands where opener doesn't rebid 2♥ are too high.. I truly detest the idea of having to make a second negative over 2♠ via 3♣ (as an example of a common method) or 3♦ over 3♣, and who the heck knows what the negative is over 3♦? Do we really want to use 3♥ for it...do we have any choice? And I like the comfort I get from knowing that 2♦ is gf.

 

To be responsive to my arguments, you need to show that kokish in an immediate second negative method is inferior to non-kokish in such a method.. not merely that it is (in terms of its intrinsic utility) even more effective in another method.

 

On a scale or -5 to +5, in terms of the value of a convention, using kokish in a delayed negative method may warrant a +4 and in my method only a +2, but that doesn't make kokish a negative.

[jdonn]

Sorry, Josh, but I found your reply confusing and unconvincing.

Of course it's confusing, my writing sux and yours is g0dly :)

 

1stly, you raise the idea that kokish can be problematic when opener has hearts: yes it can, but that is a wash..

That it's a wash was my point! You claim an advantage on balanced hands but don't mention that advantage is offset by the disadvantage when you have hearts.

 

it is a problem regardless of whether 2♦ was gf or neutral.. so this can hardly advance the merits of either approach.

That's not true since it becomes a more common problem (relatively speaking) over game forcing responding hands than it is over weak responding hands, as we get into next.

 

Then you assert, as fact, that

the heart hand is MUCH more common than the balanced hand when responder is game forcing.

 

I have no idea where you got this from. You may even be correct, but I have never heard of any statistics that would demonstrate this. Indeed, everything I know suggests that 22+ 4432, 4333 and 5332 hands are overwhelmingly more frequent than heart-based 2♣ openers, altho individual figures will vary because light 2♣ openers will open more one and 2-suited heart hands with 2♣ than I would.

I was asserting as fact that heart hands are much more common than GAME FORCING (25+) balanced hands when responder has a game forcing response. I thought the context made that obvious, but I guess I wasn't clear. My experience tells me the heart hands are more common than 25+ balanced to begin with, and of course it stands to reason that the disparity would only increase as you make responder stronger since the heart hands consist of an overall weaker range. So the group of hands on which you lose is (increasingly) much more common than the group of hands on which you gain.

 

Then you point out something I already conceded: that kokish is advantageous when responder has a very weak hand and opener is balanced and would, in my method, have to rebid 3N. Yes, that IS a reason to play kokish and delayed 2nd negative, but how on earth is that a reason NOT to play kokish IF one plays immediate second negative?

See above.

 

To be responsive to my arguments, you need to show that kokish in an immediate second negative method is inferior to non-kokish in such a method.. not merely that it is (in terms of its intrinsic utility) even more effective in another method.

I thought I made the argument and you responded, so wouldn't I be the one that needs to be convinced?

 

To be clear, I said there are two main benefits from playing Kokish (you find the right game opposite weak hands, and explore for slam more effectively opposite slightly stronger hands), but when you combine it with a 2♥ double negative you eliminate the first benefit and reduce the second. You seem to agree with me on the first part. So your possible responses to the second seem to be either that it isn't true (which is wrong) or that it's true but Kokish gains overall in that context anyway. Or you could argue Kokish has other advantages that I have missed. So if you want to make one of the last two arguments, convince me! :)

 

On a scale or -5 to +5, in terms of the value of a convention, using kokish in a delayed negative method may warrant a +4 and in my method only a +2, but that doesn't make kokish a negative.

I understand and agree with your general point that "just because it's worse doesn't mean it's bad." And my general response is "I know, but it's bad anyway."

[Guest Jlall]

Didn't read jdonn's arguments but I think he is probably saying something like:

 

If you play 2C p 2H as negative, then 2C p 2D is GF. If 2C p 2D is already GFing then you eliminate a lot of the need for kokish since 2C p 2D p 2N is GF and you can safely drive to 4N with the 25+ hand type anyways. Thus playing 2H double negative, kokish now isn't gaining very much on the balanced hand types, and has all the losses on the heart hand types that it has always had.

 

Alternatively, if you play a neutral 2D then 2D is not GFing, so you have a real problem with balanced GFing hands since you hate to jump to 3N over 2D and not have room to explore with stayman/transfers. So if you are NOT playing 2C p 2D as GFing then kokish is gaining big with the strong balanced hands and outweighs the relatively small losses you are getting on the heart hands.

 

So, playing 2H double negative AND playing kokish is not a good idea, but playing either without the other can be a very good idea.

 

I think this is a convincing argument.

[Gerben42]

Thanks for the translation Justin, I can agree with that argument :)

 

Anyway, 2♣ - 2♦ is only GF if you are not facing the Weak Two in ♦ type, of course *g.

[jdonn]

From now on Justin is my writer.

[fred]

If you play 2C p 2H as negative, then 2C p 2D is GF. If 2C p 2D is already GFing then you eliminate a lot of the need for kokish since 2C p 2D p 2N is GF and you can safely drive to 4N with the 25+ hand type anyways. Thus playing 2H double negative, kokish now isn't gaining very much on the balanced hand types, and has all the losses on the heart hand types that it has always had.

What losses on heart hands? I think that if you use a sensible rebid scheme after 2C-2D-2H-2S like the 2nd one presented in the first post of this thread, you might actually gain vs. no-Kokish on the heart hands.

 

As you might have guessed, I prefer to play both Kokish and 2H=negative :)

 

During the past couple of years I also have been playing 2S=8+ to 11 balanced. Early indications are that this might be a winner.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

During the past couple of years I also have been playing 2S=8+ to 11 balanced. Early indications are that this might be a winner.

If you get many opportunities to use this bid, then I'm sure you are a winner :)

 

It seems pretty clear to me Kokish is worse than natural on the whole when opener has hearts. You have pretty much two general options for responder over 2♥.

 

1 - Frequently use the bids above 2♠ to let responder describe his hand. This must be worse than no-kokish since you could do the exact same thing at least one bid lower if opener had promised hearts, without having to allocate 2♠ as a relay.

 

2 - Rarely or never use the bids above 2♠ to let responder describe his hand. This is obviously harder to gauge but I'll try, and use the second scheme mentioned above as an example.

Pros:

Opener can make most rebids a step below what is being shown, saving you a level of bidding the times responder wants to support that suit.

Cons:

Opener has used a lot of extra space when he has clubs, making everything responder could have wanted to do except 3NT and 4♣ use more bidding space.

Responder has not described his shape at all.

If the auction would have gone 2♥ - 2♠(natural), opener has lost the cheapest rebid.

 

Perhaps that was all unnecessary, since I think it's pretty difficult to argue that when you hold hearts, you are not worse off with a bid showing hearts or (something else) than you would be if that bid showed just hearts.

 

My bias actually extends farther since I completely dislike the 2♥ double negative convention. But with my partners who want to use it, I will still try to insist on no kokish please :)

[kenrexford]

If 2♦ as game-forcing actually showed something impressive, then bidding 2NT with anything might make sense. However, I really do not want to bid 4NT as opener with a 24-count opposite two Queens or one King just because he might have a working 8-count.

[Lobowolf]

I took a wrong turn at the gas station and ended up here by accident. Is this the thread for posting why big club systems are superior?

[fred]

Perhaps that was all unnecessary, since I think it's pretty difficult to argue that when you hold hearts, you are not worse off with a bid showing hearts or (something else) than you would be if that bid showed just hearts.

Consider these three structures:

 

1) 2C-2D-2H-natural or strong balanced with fancy artificial followups

2) 2C-2D-2H-natural with similar fancy aritificial followups (including 2s="waiting")

3) 2C-2D-2H-natural with natural followups

 

I can buy your argument when comparing 1 and 2 (of course 2 will be better when opener has hearts).

 

But I don't think you can use it to compare 1 and 3 (which is what I was trying to do).

 

You did a good job of laying out the main pros and cons between 1 and 3, but I think it would be really hard to figure out the frequency and IMP expectation (which would be partly a function of partnership style).

 

I am not claiming I know the answers either :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

What losses on heart hands? I think that if you use a sensible rebid scheme after 2C-2D-2H-2S like the 2nd one presented in the first post of this thread, you might actually gain vs. no-Kokish on the heart hands.

IMO you are still losing when responder hasn't had a chance to make a natural bid over 2H. The most obvious is whenever opener has hearts and clubs (in the second scheme given), you are super high and responder will have a lot of guess work to do, 5-3 spade fits will be tough to find if opener is 5431ish, and responder will be forced to bid 3N on a lot of hands not knowing if a 5-2 heart fit is better or not, and opener will be forced to guess whether to bid 4C over that a lot of times without much info. While I would agree that the second scheme is better than natural kokish it seems like it causes huge problems opposite heart/club hands rather than minor problems opposite all hand types.

 

The other big problem is when responder has clubs and had a 3C bid over 2H but had to bid 2S in kokish, and now isn''t going to get a chance to bid clubs anymore. This could cost in a number of ways, the most obvious being when opener has 3 clubs but also when it would have helped opener on the strain decision to know whether his partner had clubs or not.

 

Another problem is responder being able to show a six card spade suit in an auction like 2C 2D 2H 2S 3x 3S in a normal auction, whereas in a kokish auction where 2S was artificial, 3S has only shown 5, and responder will have to guess what to do over a 3N bid by partner now.

 

In general I think there are a lot of issues caused by responder only having had 1 chance to make a natural bid by the time you're at the 3 level. Even an auction like 2C 2D 2H 2S 3D 3H in kokish is worse than if responder had made a natural bid and then raised hearts next imo, because it deprives the strong hand of information.

 

Obviously if you disagree that you are losing on the heart hands then kokish+2 hearts double negative makes sense.

[benlessard]

I really like 2H as 2nd negative and i think that playing Kokish over it isnt really pertinent.

 

I have no problems for 2C----2D (GF)----2H (here to be artificial) but to play it that it completly force 2S isnt to my taste.

 

The unbalanced hand should strive to describe not the big balanced hand. Showing 2 extra point in a balanced hand when your are GF is less important than allowing responder to make a 2nd natural bid.

 

a setup like

 

2C----2D(Gf)------????

 

2H all balanced hands doesnt force 2S

2S S

2Nt H

3C C

3D D

 

is very superior to 2D(GF) coupled with 2H-Kokish.

[mike777]

Apologies, I just wanted to see what versions people play over 2C-2D-2H. I searched for previous threads, but not sure what people found 'best'.

 

We currently play 2C-

2D: 4+

2H: Double Negative

2S/3C/3D/3H: positive, 6+ suit with 2 of top 3 honours

2NT: 5/5 majors GF

 

2C-2D-2H puppets to 2S, then

 

1.

       2NT=24+ bal

    3C/3D=H's and m

3H/3S/3NT= ?

 

2.

 2NT=24+bal

  3C=H's & D's

  3D=6+H's

  3H=H's & 4S

  3S=H's & C's

 3NT=6H322 NF

 

(Ignoring that responder 'doesn't have to bid the forced 2S')

Hopefully you got some helpful replies.

 

I just play basic but it seems to work fine for me.

 

 

2c=2d(random ace or kings no great long suit/game force)=2h=standard...long hearts...4 loser hand ...good controls/ try and avoid bidding 2c with strong 2 suited hands if possible...:)

 

2c =2d is positive random ace or kings......no long great suit...game force.

2c=2h=deny ace or K but unlimited smallpoints...not game force but responder strains to rebid.

2c=2s=great spades ...standardish

2c=2nt=great hearts standardish

2c=3c or 3d=great minor...standardish...nothing fancy.

2c=2d=3h or 3s....=good 4 card major..maybe great 4 card major and longer D.

2c=2d=2nt=assume 22-24

2c=2h=2nt=22-24

2c=(2d or 2h)=3c=standard...long clubs 3 loser hand