Minorwood

[awm]

The poll pretty much says it all. Feel free to add comments below about why you like/don't like the convention, or what your rules are for when 4m is asking keycards.

[aguahombre]

Easier for me to give rules for when 4m is NOT minorwood.

--when it is Texas

--when raising partner's preempt.

--when 4SF has caused 4m to be the first show of fit (other thread)

--when obvious we are playing some other strain (splinters and cues for a major).

--when it is Gerber or Stayman.

--immediate jump to four/1m (whether there is competition or not).

--P/C takeout of pard's 3NT opening.

--when taking out pard's 3-level takeout double.

--After 1NT-3NT* showing worry about major suit stops.

--After 2NT and our MSS 3S.

Edited April 11, 2011 by aguahombre

[Finch]

Very, very limited auctions:

 

1m - 2m (inverted) - 4m

1NT - 3m (single-suited slam try) -3 any - 4m

 

That's it.

[Echognome]

Much prefer kickback, but only in a very serious partnership. Otherwise, I'd stick to keycard.

[Quantumcat]

I play 4♦ as keycard for clubs and 4♥ as keycard for diamonds. A jump to 4 of the minor is a slam invite. If partner wants to use keycard he can. 4♥ is only not keycard (in an auction that includes diamonds) if there has not been an opportunity for the person to give preference to hearts.

[mike777]

Much prefer kickback, but only in a very serious partnership.

 

 

ditto

[chasetb]

I voted for rarely, only over a jump, and that's only for 1 sequence: Over 1NT (assuming 10-12), 4m sets trump and is Minorwood. I much prefer Kickback like the other posters.

[mikl_plkcc]

I'd like the play only the following auctions as minorwood:

 

After agreement of the suit, an uninterrupted raise to 4 of the minor is minorwood. (An agreement is defined as both partner bid the same suit in a natural way, or after 1NT-transfer to minor)

 

For example:

1♦-2/3♦

4♦ (minorwood)

 

1♦-1♥

3♦(GF)-3♠

4♦(about 6♦, strongly want p to play ♦, unless p is void)

 

1♣-1♦

4♦(preempt)

 

2NT-3♠(MSS)

4♦(response to MSS)

 

1NT-2♠(transfer to ♣)

3♣-4♣(minorwood)

 

1♣-(/)-2♣-(3♠)

4♣(natural)

 

I don't like kickback because a cue-bid is more useful than any form of blackwood. I try to use cue-bids if I can, only when not enough space I uses blackwood.

[mgoetze]

I don't like 4m as simultaneously fit-showing and ace-asking. I do like 4m as ace-asking when a fit has already been established or at least implied.

 

And BTW, Quantumcat, you could have just answered "no", that would have been fine. ;)

[jillybean]

Much prefer kickback, but only in a very serious partnership. Otherwise, I'd stick to keycard.

 

 

ditto

double ditto

[mgoetze]

double ditto

Ok come on K. we all know the "only in a very serious partnership" bit doesn't apply for you. ;)

[jillybean]

My partners expertise must make up for the non-seriousness :)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

You can play BOTH Minorwood and Kickback for the minors using the following "rules-of-thumb" :

 

-- If minor suit fit has been agreed at the 3- level ( or below ), then 4m ( Minorwood ) is RKC.

 

-- If minor suit fit has been first agreed at the 4- level, then Kickback is RKC

 

Examples:

1C - 2C! ( inverted )

4C! = Minorwood-RKC

 

1S - 2C! ( 2/1 GF )

3C - 4C! = Minorwood- RKC

 

1S - 1NT

3C - 4C

4D! = Kickback-RKC

[jillybean]

You can play BOTH Minorwood and Kickback for the minors using the following "rules-of-thumb" :

 

-- If minor suit fit has been agreed at the 3- level ( or below ), then 4m ( Minorwood ) is RKC.

 

-- If minor suit fit has been first agreed at the 4- level, then Kickback is RKC

 

Examples:

1C - 2C! ( inverted )

4C! = Minorwood-RKC

 

1S - 2C! ( 2/1 GF )

3C - 4C! = Minorwood- RKC

 

1S - 1NT

3C - 4C

4D! = Kickback-RKC

 

I tried this and would get horribly mixed up. Since KB allows you to get out at the 5 level what is the benefit of playing this mixed response structure?

[Phil]

I much prefer kickback. With minorwood, you can agree trump and ask for aces simultaneously, but not both.

[mikeh]

A good friend, fine player and occasional partner of mine loves minorwood, which is the only reason I have actual experience with it. That experience has only served to confirm my dislike for it, previously based solely on theoretical grounds.

 

All too often, one needs 4m in order to either set trump or, more commonly, to confirm a slam try and start cuebidding. On those hands where we want to ask for keycard below 4N, kickback consumes only one more bid than does minorwood. By using 4m to set cuebidding in motion and kickback one gets the best of both worlds.

 

 

 

One qualification to this: I liked Frances's suggestion...but I don't play in any sufficiently serious partnership that it makes sense to play kickback and a limited form of minorwood...any gain from minorwood in those rare situations would be offset, in my case, by the risk of a forget by one or the other of us.

[Cyberyeti]

2 precise sequences only, 2♣-3♣-4♣ and 2♣-3♦-4♦ otherwise kickback. These sequences we use MW so that 2♣-3♣-4♦ and 2♣-3♦-4♥ can show a solid suit.

[fromageGB]

Similar to Cyberyeti, I use a kickback variant 99% of the time, but find minorwood the way to go in a sequence after a strong 2♣ when opener then announces a 3 suiter (eg 1444). With our simple methods, when 4♥ from responder can be to play, 4♦ is minorwood. In this situation only.

[lalldonn]

Only when someone jumps from 2m to 4m, and we were in a forcing auction prior to the jump. 1m - 2m - 4m, or 1M - 2m - 4m, or 1M - 2c - 2d - 4d are the only auctions that come to mind. But I wouldn't miss it if I didn't have it.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I tried this and would get horribly mixed up. Since KB allows you to get out at the 5 level what is the benefit of playing this mixed response structure?

 

Another advantage for playing either, besides "getting out" at the 5-level, is getting out in 4NT ( if you have prior agreement ). [ Side note: The King-ask is always "kickback" in Minorwood ] .

For example:

♣ agreed:

4C! ( Minorwood ) - 4H ( 1/4 )

??

.. 4S! ( next step = ♣Q-ask )

..4NT = to play

.. 5C = to play

.. 5D = kickback for ( specific ) Kings

 

One advantage of playing Minorwood is that you always can have a trump-Q-ask BELOW 5m.

 

When you play Kickback along with the agreement for 4NT = to play, you may NOT have a trump-Q-ask BELOW 5m.

For example:

♣ agreed:

4D! ( Kickback ) - 4S ( 1/4 )

??

..4NT = to play

.. 5C = to play

.. 5D = ??

 

Of course if you don't have 4NT = to play, you don't have a problem with a trump Q-ask .

[kenrexford]

I hate Minorwood for reasons others have said.

 

I love Kickback when clubs are trumps (4♦ as RKCB).

 

When diamonds are trumps, I prefer the cheapest out-of-focus major as RKCB, however. This is usually 4♥ as RKCB, but 4♠ if a heart strain is "in focus." If either major can be in focus, which happens, I hate bridge and want to shoot myself.

[Vampyr]

With minorwood, you can agree trump and ask for aces simultaneously, but not both.

 

Simultaneously means both. (At the same time).

[mikl_plkcc]

I dislikes kickback very much. I think the suit above trump is better used as a cue-bid.

[rhm]

I hate Minorwood for reasons others have said.

I have not heard any reasons, only what others like or dislike.

 

I am a fan of minorwood, but like any convention it needs a well thought out framework of agreements, in which it can operate effectively.

My reasons I prefer minorwood to kickback and other alternatives are:

Kickback conflicts often with strain searching and with playing jumps in an unbid suit as splinter.

It is too disaster prone for my partnerships and it occurs one bid higher, which is important, because I like to get out at 4NT, when only minors are involved.

Kickback was designed to be able to get out in five of the agreed suit, but not at 4NT.

Minorwood allows to suggest a minor suit slam, for example over 3NT from partner, which is often a real headache, particularly at matchpoints, and still stop at 4NT if the response is unsatisfactory. At least most of the time.

The advantage of making 4NT a possible resting place is the biggest advantage of minorwood, far more important than all the deficiencies I have heard of so far.

 

4m for me is almost always minorwood with few exceptions:

 

- It is clear that slam is not an issue, because both hands are limited in strength and distribution by previous bids. (rare)

- We are forced to the 4-level competitively by the opponents or we preempt over opponents interference (more frequent)

- when playing a precision type 2C opening, I play an immediate 4C response as preemptive and an immediate 4D bid as key card, the only sequence where I prefer kickback.

 

4m is minorwood even if partner has never agreed the suit, provided the minorwood bidder has shown length in the suit before.

I find it of practical importance of being able to set a suit at least temporarily as trumps and ask for key-cards, where partner may be short.

Nothing is more frustrating than battling with partner over strain, when you hold a very long strong suit and know partner will be short in this suit.

Minorwood is simple and effective and has improved my minor suit slam bidding substantially.

 

On the other side not being able to start a control showing sequence with four of the agreed minor has not turned out to be a big detriment, mainly because control showing sequences should start below four of the agreed suit to be effective.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I have posted my way of handling 4m bids in these kinds of auctions a few times already but I guess one more time will not hurt. If 4m is bid and m is (now) trumps then it is a slam try (or better). Partner bids the first step to decline the slam try or steps 2 to 5 to accept the slam try and simultaneously show key cards. After a deline then the next step demands a key card response. An exception: if we agreed the minor at the 3 level and were able to make our slam try already and we do not need 4m as a control-showing bid then 4m is Minorwood. This allows for the simplest ever Kickback rule: if 4m+1 can logically be natural then it is, otherwise it is key card asking. Clearly these agreements are too simple to be 100% optimal. Nonetheless I have found they cover quite a lot of ground in practise without a big risk of misunderstandings happening.