A couple of Kickback questions

[humilities]

Partnership is new to Kickback, we've had a couple questionable (uncontested) auctions recently:

 

(Auction 1)

1C - 1D

3NT - 4D?

 

3NT= good hand, running clubs, little interest in responder's suit.

 

Obviously if partner had bid a major then 4D would be KB for clubs ... but what about when he bids 1D?

 

(Auction 2)

1C - 1S

3C - 3D

3NT - 4D?

 

4C by responder would have been a slam try (with opener now able to bid 4D KB if he wished). But what if responder need to bid RKC, 4D sure sounds natural here...

[ahydra]

Auction 1 I think should be KC for clubs - opener showed a bucketload of them.

 

Auction 2 is less clear. I think you have to make some partnership agreement here - considering things like: what about if responder is 6-5, what other ace-asking method (4NT?) might be available after 4C, and whether 4H would be kickback for ♦ (in which case it makes sense for 4D to be kickback for ♣).

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

As a kickback user, the answer is "whatever you agree". We err on the side of KB, other people err on the side of "if there's a 10% chance it's natural, it's natural".

 

Auction 1, I think we'd play 4♦ nat 4♥ KB♣.

 

Auction 2, I think we'd do the same as auction 1.

[Zelandakh]

On auction 1, slightly better than Yeti's suggestion (imho) is to play 4♣ as conditional KCB agreeing clubs and 4♦ natural (and 4♥ can now be RKCB for diamonds of you like). Over 4♣, Opener bids 4♦ with a bad hand for slam, then 4♥ is RKCB. With a good hand for slam Opener instead shows key cards as if 4♦ Kickback had been bid. The KB alternative that I can think of would be to play 4♣ as initiating cue bids for clubs; 4♦ as Kickback; and 4M as cue bids for diamonds, but that seems so unnatural to me that I cannot believe that any pairs would play it this way.

 

Auction 2 is similar and I think the same arrangement is good here: 4♣ as conditional KCB for clubs; 4♦ natural. Notice that in this auction, Responder could have bid 4♦ last round if all they wanted to do was ask for key cards so having 3♦ followed by 4♦ also ask seems a little strange.

[fromageGB]

As cyberyeti says, "whatever you agree", but you have to have guideline agreements.

 

Mine say 1♣ 1♦ 3NT 4♦ is ace ask in clubs. 3NT says good hand, good clubs, so there is no need for responder to take it out to play in 4♦ (assuming 1♦ is natural). Even if leaving it in may be a gamble. However, you could argue that the same applies to taking out to 4♣ to play, which means that 4♣ should have a meaning. My preferred partnership will play this the same as our normal minor slam try, a conditional ace ask with Zelandakh's continuations.

 

(You may say that as 4♣ can ace ask in clubs anyway there is no need for 4♦ to be ace asking in clubs too, but there is that little squeeze on space after a 4♦ denial that might make a difference. I think there is a case for 4♦ to be a similar slam try conditional ask in diamonds, but I don't have that agreement, and 4♥ would be ace asking.)

 

For the second auction we play categorically that 4♦ is natural. Partner has shown his long clubs with 3♣, so a hand that would ace ask will do so at this point. Incidentally we would apply the same logic as before to 4♣ ("why take it out?") so that 4♣ would be conditional ace ask in clubs, but obviously very conditional, as it did not ace ask the round before.

[fromageGB]

Interesting to see the summary so far :

auction 1 - 2

ace ask - ace ask

natural - natural

natural - natural (but when ace asking, different to the above naturals)

ace ask - natural

 

It somewhat emphasises your need to make partnership rules/guidleines/agreements, because if you happen to take a different view to partner on one of these hands it is likely to make a very significant difference !

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Zelandakh can correct me if I'm wrong about "his method" for these auctions .

 

In BOTH auctions, Responder bids 4C ( 1st agreeing ♣ on the 4-level ) as a slam-try over 3NT.

If Opener wants to DECLINE the slam-try, he bids the 1st step ( 4D! ) here.

If Opener wants to ACCEPT the slam-try, the next 4 steps are kickback replies.

 

This way there is no confusion if Responder instead wants to bid a natural 4D over 3NT .

[mike777]

way too complicated guys.....much easier is to just bid 4c in both cases and let the stronger hand bid kickback(4d).

 

I would strongly recommend to not complicate kickback even more than it already is in its basic form.

[keylime]

Auction 1: For me, not Kickback. I'd play it as cuebid in support of clubs.

Auction 2: Natural, forward going.

[Free]

I don't feel the need to play 4♦ as kickback in the first auction. You can easily set trumps with 4♣ and let opener use 4♦ as kickback. If you really have to kickback immediately, I suggest you use 4♥ for ♣ and 4♠ for ♦.

 

Auction 2 is similar: if you want to set ♣s, then bid 4♣. 4♦ is natural, 4♥ would be kickback ♣, 4♠ is probably natural because you already bid that suit, so 4NT is immediate 'kickback' for ♦.

 

In general it's best not to play kickback unless trumps have been set. In both auctions no trump suit was set, so you don't have kickback available yet. In both auctions responder can easily set trumps in opener's suit, after which opener can kickback.

I also disagree that 1♣-1M-3NT-4♦ should be kickback. I have held a 6-6 or 6-5 before, and I want to be able to find the best fit, even if it's at 4-level.

[WesleyC]

My preference is Cyberyeti's second option. If a 4m+1 bid could possibly be natural, then it is. By that logic, both 4D bids would be natural.

 

In each case, you still have a forcing 4C bid available so making a slam try isn't impossible.

[fromageGB]

You can easily set trumps with 4♣ and let opener use 4♦ as kickback.

... 4♠ is probably natural because you already bid that suit, so 4NT is immediate 'kickback' for ♦.

The problem with the first is that while opener CAN ace ask, it is responder that wants to do the asking, and can make sensible decisions as to outcome.

 

If do not want to use 4♦ as asking, then I think you need to use clubs as either minorwood or conditional ask. If you use higher suits, or 4NT, you are taking up space which may lead to ambiguous answers or inability to Q ask, for example. If you extend the ace responses further up the scale, then king asking is impossible. You also run into the problem of lack of certainty - "is that bid an ace ask in these circumstances, or is it a cue bid?" Or "is that 4NT ace asking in diamonds or spades?" As the circumstances are rare, the scope for catastrophic error increases. My preference is to have simple rules that always apply, even if they are not optimal in all circumstances - eg in post#5 where I use 4♥ as ace ask in diamonds when 4♦ may be better.

 

Rather than try for perfection, I think you need something that always applies - whether it is a flat "if it can be natural/ace asking, it is", or with some agreed exceptions.

[mike777]

I have my doubts how often responder needs to bid kickback and control the bidding on these types of auctions rather than opener.

[CSGibson]

Neither are kickback in my partnerships. My guiding rule is that if we did not play kickback, and the bid would be natural, then it is also natural in my kickback partnership. Both of these bids qualify.

[mike777]

In general we take the exact opposite tack......If a bid might be kickback at the 4 level it is.

 

Kickback is a complicated convention, even the greatest of players get confused.

 

One common issue is with 2 touching suits....practice lots of practice helps.

 

 

In general try not to make a bid that might confuse pard ....and if it does...ok...discuss over a drink.....and enjoy :)

[wank]

is there any other convention that produces so many misunderstandings for so little tangible benefit?

[mike777]

is there any other convention that produces so many misunderstandings for so little tangible benefit?

 

 

no please don't use it...esp if you are an expert partnership.

[Zelandakh]

Zelandakh can correct me if I'm wrong about "his method" for these auctions.

This is correct and what I was (perhaps badly) trying to explain in the paragraph on auction 1. I do not think this is "too complicated" as per Mike; in fact I think it often simplifies things greatly since it is an agreement that can be applied across almost all slam auctions with minor suit agreement at the 4 level.

[mike777]

yes please use complicated agreements when using kickback.

 

pLEASE USE different agreements on your auctions.

 

when playing kickback use complicated agreements not basic kb.

\

 

for minors use other stuff.......

[Zelandakh]

pLEASE USE different agreements on your auctions.

it would be really nice if you actually read the posts of those you reply to at least once a year. Which part of "it is an agreement that can be applied across almost all slam auctions with minor suit agreement at the 4 level" led you to the above summary? I have posted often enough my take on how four level minor suit agreements can be applied with simple, consistent rules that work for the vast majority of auctions and are perfect for intermediate players. I have also posted some suggested rules for a first-time Kickback partnership of non-expert level specifically designed to avoid any misunderstandings. But naturally, you did not read those posts either.

[mike777]

it would be really nice if you actually read the posts of those you reply to at least once a year. Which part of "it is an agreement that can be applied across almost all slam auctions with minor suit agreement at the 4 level" led you to the above summary? I have posted often enough my take on how four level minor suit agreements can be applied with simple, consistent rules that work for the vast majority of auctions and are perfect for intermediate players. I have also posted some suggested rules for a first-time Kickback partnership of non-expert level specifically designed to avoid any misunderstandings. But naturally, you did not read those posts either.

 

 

right per agreements you made that clear if you read your own posts...

 

 

I may be the only one who read them or you don't play kickback.

 

 

bottom line don't make kickback more complicated than the basic agreements....there is enough confusion.

 

clearly you did not read mine which I suggested many over the years If you did read them you might find more agreement than not.....

[Cyberyeti]

is there any other convention that produces so many misunderstandings for so little tangible benefit?

We find the tangible benefits enormous (mainly where you can ask for aces when 4N would mean that one response couldn't be handled, and also that you can much better investigate grands after asking), and while we've had several auctions where there is ambiguity, only once have we ended up somewhere really stupid in 10+ years. If you're proposing minorwood instead I won't argue too much, but there are auctions where 4♠ with hearts agreed is very useful (1N-2♣/♦-2♥-4N is clearly quant as 4♠ asks for aces).

[fromageGB]

And thank you, Zel, for your explanations. I have played kickback for many years (but with simpler replies than RKCB, because as you always have the same space available you do not need the compression and possible ambiguity that RKCB gives) and have solid agreements for that, but you have added the minor suit slam try conditional ace ask.

 

You are right, the same method applies in varied circumstances. The "conditional question" sometimes differs : if we have responder introducing 4m after a 2NT sequence that failed to find a major fit, then the question as we play it is "do you have 3 card support", and on other hands if one side shows a long minor then bids 3NT to play, the question is "I have support, do you fancy a slam?" The method, though, is the same. The next step is negative to the question (then 4NT is natural, but the next step would ace ask regardless), but a positive makes his normal ace reply steps starting at the step above (which would be the "normal" reply for the "normal" ace asking bid). Very useful, simple, and easy to apply.

 

I, too, have found kickback very beneficial, not marginal. It is worth any intermediate player trying it and formulating his partnership agreements. It is just a pity that there is no simple consensus on the treatment for potentially ambiguous situations - particularly the adjacent suit scenarios.

[fromageGB]

I have my doubts how often responder needs to bid kickback and control the bidding on these types of auctions rather than opener.

Maybe you haven't quite got your head round this. Opener did not want to look for slam, and he bid 3NT to play. Responder is unlimited, and his distribution and holdings are unknown. If responder merely bids the minor to say "I am interested in slam", how is opener going to know what is useful or not? Of course responder is the one who needs to take control.