Kickback addicts

[jillybean]

We had this auction on the partnership bidding table tonight.

 

1♦:1♥

2N:3♠

3N:4♥

4N*

 

Is 4N here kickback for spades or keycard for hearts? It seems like it could go either way so we devised the following

rule. If we have not agreed to a suit below the 4 level, 4N is ace ask for the suit immeidately preceding 4N.

 

How do others handle this?

[nigel_k]

Responder's 4♥ sets hearts as trumps. If there was no Kickback, 4NT would be RKCB and 4♠ a cue bid. With Kickback these are reversed, i.e. 4♠ is RKCB and 4NT is a spade cue bid.

[frank0]

Does 3♠ or 4♥ shows some slam interested hand? Otherwise how can the opener asking for key-card?

[Phil]

This auction doesn't make sense. A hand that tries to play 3N over 3♠ doesn't RKC after a 4♥ signoff.

[jillybean]

Responder's 4♥ sets hearts as trumps. If there was no Kickback, 4NT would be RKCB and 4♠ a cue bid. With Kickback these are reversed, i.e. 4♠ is RKCB and 4NT is a spade cue bid.

Isn't 4♥ a choice of games? How do we get to play in 4♠ here.

 

I am trying to find the hand, where do partnership bidding hands get logged when using Flash, or do they?

[Flem72]

Isn't 4♥ a choice of games? How do we get to play in 4♠ here.

 

I am trying to find the hand, where do partnership bidding hands get logged when using Flash, or do they?

 

If you are playing the Wolff 3D checkback as per your other thread, 3S should show slammish, at least 4-5, and 4H usually 4-6. Dontcha think?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

In your other thread, you said you now include the Wolff Sign-off.

Thus, 3D! would be a GF, asking for the Majors.

So... what does the direct 3S rebid show ?

[jillybean]

I thought 3♠ was just forward going, second suit, neutral as to slam interest.

3♦ checkback is asking for more information from partner, asking bid.

3♣ is slam on the breaks so we can get out below game.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

We had this auction on the partnership bidding table tonight.

 

1♦:1♥

2N:3♠

3N:4♥

4N*

 

Is 4N here kickback for spades or keycard for hearts? It seems like it could go either way so we devised the following

rule. If we have not agreed to a suit below the 4 level, 4N is ace ask for the suit immeidately preceding 4N.

 

How do others handle this?

 

1 ) I assume 3S ostensibly is showing 5h/4s GF, but as you say, not slammish

 

2 ) 3NT denies 3h and denies 4s

 

3 ) 4H must be showing 6h/4s

 

4 ) Surely, Opener has not found another Sp somewhere, so any RKC-asking bid should be for ♥.

If you play kickbak, then RKC should be 4S!, but maybe Opener thought that would be "to play"

in a Moysian fit, so he bid 4NT as RKC for ♥

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If it went via the 3D! route instead, then Spades would not have been mentioned as a suit and clearly 4S! would have been kickback [ a 4-4 fit is still in the picture using 3D! ] :

1D - 1H

2NT - 3D!

??

.. 3S = 1st priority : 4 cards Sp, but may have 3 cards Hts

.. 3H = 2nd priority: 3 cards Hts, but no 4 cards Sp

...3NT = denies 3h and denies 4s )

 

After:

3NT - 4H ( 6+ cards Hts )

4S! ( kickback - RKC for ♥ )

[nigel_k]

Maybe there are different styles. I would always use checkback with no slam interest. Once opener bids 3NT over 3♠, spades are ruled out as a trump suit unless responder is 5-6 and continues with 4♠. So this sounds like 4-6 with slam interest and opener can accept by cue bidding.

[jillybean]

I think you're right on all counts, we are revisiting the auction. Thank you :)

[jillybean]

So, playing walsh signoff and kickback where

 

1♣:1M

2N:

....3♣ is a relay to 3♦ pass or correct to 3M

....3♦ checkback

....3M slammish

 

then

 

1♣:1♠

2N:3♥ *slam interest 5♠/4♥+

3♠ confirming 3 spades, neutral to slam interest, responder is obliged to cue

3N 2344

4♣/♦ cue in support of ♥

4♥ confirming 4 hearts, denying cue (this is an impossible bid? unless you hold QJ,AKQJ,QJx,QJxxx)

4♠ kickback

4N ♠ cue in support of ♥

 

&

 

1♣:1♥

2N:3♠ *slam interest 5♥/4♠

3N 3244

4♣/4♦ cue in support of ♠

4♥ confirming 3 hearts, neutral to slam interest, responder is obliged to cue

4♠ confirming 4 spades, denying cue

4N kickback

 

Howzat?

[Fluffy]

How do others handle this?

 

Not playing kickback

[nigel_k]

So, playing walsh signoff and kickback where ...

I don't think opener is required to cue bid with a really unsuitable hand, though they usually will.

 

On the first one, opener definitely is not required to go beyond 4♥ in order to make a spade cue bid, so a hand like AQ AQxx QJx QJxx would bid 4♥.

 

When responder reverses, as on the second one, a cue bid should set hearts, not spades. It's awkward because you don't have space to do everything but hands with three hearts and less than four spades are more common than hands with four spades and two hearts. The other thing is that when opener has a suitable hand for slam they need to be able to cue bid regardless of which major they support - but if opener has heart support they really don't want to hear a leap to 6♠.

 

I think it takes a more sophisticated method than Wolff to avoid this.

[bluecalm]

How do others handle this?

 

 

Not playing kickback

 

I mean, srsly...

I think everybody would be better off just getting rid of it. Even Levin-Weinstein screw it up recently and it seems it confuses people to no end. For what it's worth top Italian and Polish pairs don't play kickback in any sequence (I am not sure if there is anybody in Poland who ever played it ;)).

[jillybean]

Thanks...

On the first one, opener definitely is not required to go beyond 4♥ in order to make a spade cue bid, so a hand like AQ AQxx QJx QJxx would bid 4♥.

Opener has shown 18-19 and responder is showing slam interest, is it really dangerous to make a first cue at the 5 level, if promising 1st round control?

 

 

When responder reverses, as on the second one, a cue bid should set hearts, not spades. It's awkward because you don't have space to do everything but hands with three hearts and less than four spades are more common than hands with four spades and two hearts. The other thing is that when opener has a suitable hand for slam they need to be able to cue bid regardless of which major they support - but if opener has heart support they really don't want to hear a leap to 6♠.

This is very complicated, and I'm sure that I would forget it. I understand it will be more common to have heart support but what is wrong with using 4♥ to set hearts and let responder make the first cue if as above, we should be safe at the 5 level?

 

I think it takes a more sophisticated method than Wolff to avoid this.

Maybe later :)

[jillybean]

Not playing kickback

 

 

I mean, srsly...

I think everybody would be better off just getting rid of it. Even Levin-Weinstein screw it up recently and it seems it confuses people to no end. For what it's worth top Italian and Polish pairs don't play kickback in any sequence (I am not sure if there is anybody in Poland who ever played it ;)).

 

I have floated this idea with my partner too but this is a infrequent auction and I'm not sure that it is one that justifies throwing out KB.

[mike777]

We had this auction on the partnership bidding table tonight.

 

1♦:1♥

2N:3♠

3N:4♥

4N*

 

Is 4N here kickback for spades or keycard for hearts? It seems like it could go either way so we devised the following

rule. If we have not agreed to a suit below the 4 level, 4N is ace ask for the suit immeidately preceding 4N.

 

How do others handle this?

 

 

jb as you know I play kickback

 

 

4nt cannot be kickback for hearts ever....never

so the question becomes is 4nt kickback, ace asking, for spades or a cuebid in spades agreeing hearts.

or is 4nt natural to play.

 

let me put it another way, If you dont play kickback what is 4nt? I just dont see how that helps solve the problem.

 

 

for starters this bid is so rare I am not going to worry about it...........and pard would never bid it.

 

with no alerts I guess pard has 6h and 5s but you deny any 3 card major?

[Zelandakh]

4nt cannot be kickback for hearts ever....never

This is true, but even playing Kickback there are situations, usually where both majors are still in the picture as a trump suit and the bidding is at 4♦ (or 4♥), where it is a good idea to play 4NT as RKCB for hearts. In such situations you can often extend the principle so that 5♣ is RKCB for spades if you want to make that agreement.

[mikeh]

So, playing walsh signoff and kickback where

 

1♣:1M

2N:

....3♣ is a relay to 3♦ pass or correct to 3M

....3♦ checkback

....3M slammish

 

then

 

1♣:1♠

2N:3♥ *slam interest 5♠/4♥+

3♠ confirming 3 spades, neutral to slam interest, responder is obliged to cue

3N 2344

4♣/♦ cue in support of ♥

4♥ confirming 4 hearts, denying cue (this is an impossible bid? unless you hold QJ,AKQJ,QJx,QJxxx)

4♠ kickback

4N ♠ cue in support of ♥

 

&

 

1♣:1♥

2N:3♠ *slam interest 5♥/4♠

3N 3244

4♣/4♦ cue in support of ♠

4♥ confirming 3 hearts, neutral to slam interest, responder is obliged to cue

4♠ confirming 4 spades, denying cue

4N kickback

 

Howzat?

In the pacific NW, where you and I play, kathryn, the normal opening call with 3244 is 1♦, not 1♣, so your 3244 hands don't work after a 1♣ opening: I'd expect 3235.

 

On the OP topic: once responder bids 4♥, opener having retreated to 3N over 3♠, it is impossible for there to be a spade fit....so it makes zero sense for any call to be keycard for spades.

 

In addition, if 4♥ was to play, there can be no hands on which a keycard answer allows opener to bid slam. I personally think that there would be very few hands on which opener can keycard even if 4♥ shows slam interest, but I probably use keycard less often than most. If I were to use keycard, then kickback makes sense, with 4N becoming a spade cue.

 

Opener retreating to a natural 4N makes no sense: responder is at least 4=6 majors, and I don't care how loaded opener is in the minors....opener has already denied interest in either major and responder has overruled him/her.

 

As for methods, I play with two fine players who love wolff, but I think it is distinctly inferior, on most hands, to transfers after the 2N rebid.

 

Kickback is fine. Just because no italians or poles play it is irrelevant: why not argue that no NAs play what the italians play, so the italians should stop playing their methods?

 

But kickback is like any other convention: you and your partner need to have agreements. My view is that you specify when it applies, and never, ever assume that it applies in any other situation. IOW, if you are in a previously undiscussed auction, and it makes sense to use kickback, don't.....since you haven't specifically agreed that it applies here, it doesn't apply. Then, after the hand, agree (if you want) that in future it does. In that way, you avoid guessing games at the table. Of course, you should also exchange written notes setting out the rules, so as to minimize the chances of this happening.

[bluecalm]

Kickback is fine. Just because no italians or poles play it is irrelevant: why not argue that no NAs play what the italians play, so the italians should stop playing their methods?

 

My argument was only to show that "no kickback ever" is playable agreement as showed by elite players around the world. My arguments against kickback was that people, even great players, regularly have disasters because of it and if you have one -12 imp disaster because of kickback you will have to play 20 more years or so to make EV for it, not worth it.

If you have various bids in various sequences as ace ask with many not fully consistent rules guarding it you better be Meckwell to not screw it up.

Imo if you are not full time player having hours a day for working on your system you are hurting yourself by agreements like kickback because gains from it, if any are very small and disaster bound to happen very expensive.

 

As to the OP problem I don't understand how opener is bidding anything here. He is supposedly 18-19 balanced and partner might have 6hcp with 6-4 distribution, say: KQTx JTxxxx xx x or even weakier hand good enough for game opposite 18-19. If opener somehow feels his hand is good enough for forcing a slam here (which might only be because of miscounting points or something) the only reasonable slam might be in hearts as 3NT denied 4 spades. In that case 4NT must be rkcb for hearts as ace asking for spades is pointless in the context.

[jillybean]

Another kickback question...

 

(P) 1♥ (1♠) 2♦

(4♠) ?

 

Is 4N a spade cue here and are we unable to ask for keycards?

[Statto]

Another kickback question...

 

(P) 1♥ (1♠) 2♦

(4♠) ?

 

Is 4N a spade cue here and are we unable to ask for keycards?

I would take it as 2 places to play, irrespective of whether playing Kickback...

[mgoetze]

Is 4N a spade cue here and are we unable to ask for keycards?

Step 1: Agree Suit

Step 2: Cuebid

Step 3: Ask for Keycards

 

Step 2 is optional. Step 1 isn't.

[Quartic]

We had this auction on the partnership bidding table tonight.

 

1♦:1♥

2N:3♠

3N:4♥

4N*

 

Is 4N here kickback for spades or keycard for hearts? It seems like it could go either way so we devised the following

rule. If we have not agreed to a suit below the 4 level, 4N is ace ask for the suit immeidately preceding 4N.

 

How do others handle this?

 

I think 4NT should be double rkcb - ie both major Kings are keycards. We're probably headed to 6♥, but the ♠King is likely to be just as important as the ♥King.