A Hole in the System...

[32519]

So you and partner have agreed to use 4♠ as kickback when ♥ have been agreed as the trump suit. But you have also included Voidwood into your system. Now you end up with a hole (overlap) when you have agreed ♥ as trumps but your void suit is ♠. What now?

 

Do we just dump kickback altogether? Or is there a sensible way to address this?

(We switched to kickback when once or twice we were forced to level 6 off 2-keycards over a RKCB asking sequence showing 2-keycards with the trump queen).

[petterb]

A jump to 4NT is voidwood with a spade void.

[1eyedjack]

(We switched to kickback when once or twice we were forced to level 6 off 2-keycards over a RKCB asking sequence showing 2-keycards with the trump queen).

 

That sort of begs the question, whether on those earlier hands the auction preceding RKCB was optimal and/or whether RKCB was the right tool to investigate slam under the circumstances.

 

For sure, switching to kickback may be an improvement generally, but even so those example hands might deserve deeper analysis.

 

Personally I cannot remember an occasion where

(1) hearts are trumps,

(2) the preceding auction was sensible,

(3) RKCB is the right tool for the job, and

(4) the 5S response to RKCB has committed us to a poor 6H slam.

 

Now, if a minor suit has been agreed (in the extreme Clubs of course) then that is a different matter.

[32519]

That sort of begs the question, whether on those earlier hands the auction preceding RKCB was optimal and/or whether RKCB was the right tool to investigate slam under the circumstances.

This happened when the weaker hand decided to take control of the auction (another gripe of mine in a different thread). My F2F partner is a very aggressive bidder. To minimize the damage I forced a switch to kickback.

[Free]

I've played several deals where regular RKC got either us or our opponents to a poor ♥ slam (or we/they didn't risk asking for keycards afraid of a 5♠ response), or didn't get us/them to slam after a 5♦ response, while Kickback RKC solved the issue.

 

Note that there are several advantages of Kickback RKC:

- you can stay at 5-level more often (no responses higher than 5♥ unless with a useful void)

- you can always ask for the trump Q below 5♥

- you have extra space when you're investigating grand slam.

 

Basically Kickback switches the 4NT bid with the suit higher than trumps. In case of ♥, 4♠ becomes RKC and 4NT becomes the exclusion RKC with void ♠ (or control, or whatever your normal 4♠ bid would've meant playing regular RKC). Also the 5♠ and 5NT bids are reversed.

 

I've always found it very easy to adopt Kickback RKC for ♥, a real must have imo. Kickback RKC for the minors is a whole other story imo, because that requires a lot more discussion, rules,...

[Cyberyeti]

As others have said, 4N is usually voidwood in spades BUT there are auctions where it's quantitative.

 

1N-2♣-2♥-4♠ is KB

1N-2♣-2♥-4N is quantitative

[Vampyr]

That sort of begs the question, whether on those earlier hands the auction preceding RKCB was optimal and/or whether RKCB was the right tool to investigate slam under the circumstances.

Now, if a minor suit has been agreed (in the extreme Clubs of course) then that is a different matter.

 

Do yourself a favour and find out what "begs the question" actually means.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

As others have said, 4N is usually voidwood in spades BUT there are auctions where it's quantitative.

 

1N-2♣-2♥-4♠ is RKB

1N-2♣-2♥-4N is quantitative

What are your splinter sequences over a Stayman reply ?

If :

1NT - 2C

2H - 3Sjump = ♠-shortness ( agreeing ♥ )

3NT/4C/4D - then 4S or 4NT could be Exclusion ( ♠-void )

[Cyberyeti]

What are your splinter sequences over a Stayman reply ?

If :

1NT - 2C

2H - 3Sjump = ♠-shortness ( agreeing ♥ )

3NT/4C/4D - then 4S or 4NT could be Exclusion ( ♠-void )

This depends on your methods, if you have 4 hearts and a spade void then you have a 5+ card minor, you might be transferring to that then bidding hearts on those hands depending on what 1N-2♣-2♠-3m means for you.

[PhilKing]

Do yourself a favour and find out what "begs the question" actually means.

 

If Aristotle played bridge, I doubt he would have taken issue One Eye's post.

[fromageGB]

Aristotle probably would, if he spoke English and had access to the web site on his (clay) tablet. Did he play bridge?

 

As this is an English language discourse medium, it perhaps behoves us to use the language correctly if we can, to avoid being misunderstood by those who are not native speakers. I learn bridge ideas from this site, and am grateful to the contributors. I am also happy to learn from those point out a common misuse of the language, and am enriched as a result.

[fromageGB]

It is certainly sensible to use 4♠ as ace asking in hearts, and 4NT as the same with a void in spades. Indeed, we use "4T+2" as ace asking with a void whatever the suit bid happens to be, if it is a suit that has not been bid naturally.

 

For example, with 3 suits bid, 1♥ 2♦(GF) 2♠(may be weak or strong) 3♥(suit agreement) then

(1) 4♠ = ace asking in hearts

(2) 4NT = ditto with a club void.

 

Where only two suits have been bid, we use the next 2 bids above the normal ace ask as voidwood, with one of those natural if possible, and the other being the fourth suit. For example, 1♠ 2♥ 3♥

(1) 4♠ = ace asking in hearts

(2) 4NT = ditto with a diamond void.

(3) 5♣ = ditto with a club void.

[barmar]

The Oxford American Dictionary that's used as the source for the Dictionary app on Macs says:

The original meaning of the phrase beg the question belongs to the field of logic. It is a translation of the Latin rhetorical term petitio principii, literally meaning ‘laying claim to a principle,' that is, assuming something that ought to be proved first, as in the following sentence: : dogs should be locked up, otherwise attacks by wild dogs on children will continue to increase. This begs the question (among other questions) whether, in fact, such attacks are increasing. Usually such a statement will give the impression that the problem of proving the argument has been sidestepped. From this impression of sidestepping, a new meaning has developed: 'avoid the question, evade the issue,' as in : they said he begged the question by criticizing his opponent's program. Also, over the last 100 years or so another, more general use has arisen: ‘invite an obvious question,’ as in : some definitions of mental illness beg the question of what constitutes normal behavior. Both of these newer meanings are widely accepted in modern standard English, although they have been criticized as being misunderstandings of the Latin rhetorical term. To some traditionalists, the sense of 'assume the truth of an argument to be proved' is still the only correct meaning of beg the question. Both of the newer meanings of beg are used not only with question, but with other words as well: : beg the point, beg the issue, beg the difficulties.

[fromageGB]

@ Barmar

 

I am further enriched.

[barmar]

I am further enriched.

I was going to complain about your misspelling of "behoove" in a post that was criticizing someone else's use of language. But my dictionary says that "behove" is the British spelling.

[PhilKing]

I might be being a bit thick, but I thought One Eye was right on the strict definition:

 

Question: we sometimes get to slam missing two key cards, does kickback solve the problem?

 

Answer: You are asking the wrong question - you are getting to slams off two key cards because your partner is a lunatic who uses RKCB with spanners.

 

One of the logical fallacies in the original question concerns being "forced to level 6" by the methods.

[1eyedjack]

An additional problem with swapping from RKCB to Kickback in order to avoid playing in a poor 6H opposite two key cards + trump Q is that if partner has some holding worse than two key cards + trump Q there is a good chance if not certainty that 5H is too high. The other reasons for swapping to Kickback are otherwise sound.

[Zelandakh]

An additional problem with swapping from RKCB to Kickback in order to avoid playing in a poor 6H opposite two key cards + trump Q is that if partner has some holding worse than two key cards + trump Q there is a good chance if not certainty that 5H is too high. The other reasons for swapping to Kickback are otherwise sound.

If 5♥ is too high when partner holds a lesser holding then we should almost certainly not have been asking for key cards in the first place, whichever method of asking is agreed.

[fromageGB]

Not all auctions allow you the ability to discover combined strength and controls (or their absence) sufficiently to ensure that ace asking is safe at the 5 level. Nevertheless, if you are going to ask for aces, it makes sense to use a method that allows you to stop when 2 keycards are missing, so kickback does solve that problem.

 

> "An additional problem with swapping from RKCB to Kickback in order to avoid playing in a poor 6H opposite two key cards + trump Q is that if partner has some holding worse than two key cards + trump Q there is a good chance if not certainty that 5H is too high."

 

This is not true, as RKCB and kickback are the same in that regard - ie this is not an additional problem.

[1eyedjack]

> "An additional problem with swapping from RKCB to Kickback in order to avoid playing in a poor 6H opposite two key cards + trump Q is that if partner has some holding worse than two key cards + trump Q there is a good chance if not certainty that 5H is too high."

 

This is not true, as RKCB and kickback are the same in that regard - ie this is not an additional problem.

It is an additional problem in that if you disregard this effect you might overstate the positive benefits of kickback. All rather irrelevant as I agree that kickback has net benefits.