3-Way Kokish Game Tries and raising on 3 cards

[dustinst22]

If playing Kokish 3-way game tries, how do you handle situations where partner starts an ask and you have raised on 3 cards?

 

i.e. 1♣-1♥; 2♥-2♠

 

Where you have raised with an unbalanced hand and 3 hearts, and 2 ♠ is kokish ask.

 

The reason I ask is that 3NT could be your best spot, but there is no way to communicate your 3 card raise playing Kokish that I know of. Do you just agree when playing this method to never raise on 3 pieces?

[yunling]

If you often raise with 3 card then I suspect you shouldn't play kokish here.

[jallerton]

Is there some new trend to describe all agreements as "Kokish"?

[BillHiggin]

Is there some new trend to describe all agreements as "Kokish"?

 

There exists a group of experts (well, not an organized group) that have settled into the role of coach. They devote a lot of effort to study of the methods used by top international pairs that may not be well documented. When they find one of these methods that seems quite effective, they may choose to publish something about them - often presented as "Look what xxxx are doing now". When such a method meets with wide spread adoption, it is not uncommon for them to be named after the person that first published something about them rather than the actual innovators. Note that, in general, the coach who did the publishing was not in any way trying to take credit for the ideas of others.

Benito Garozzo is an example of soneone who has been very innovative, but has not been very active in publishing his innovations. Nagy and Kokish are examples of the sort of coaches mentioned above. I think we would find that many conventions named after Nagy or Kokish are actually Garozzo innovations, and the naming has happened because of who publicized the method rather than the actual innovator. Please allow me to emphasize that neither Nagy nor Kokish have done anything underhanded. I am sure that either would be quick to credit the actual innovator (who might not have been Benito - we don't really know).

[glen]

There exists a group of experts (well, not an organized group) that have settled into the role of coach. They devote a lot of effort to study of the methods used by top international pairs that may not be well documented. When they find one of these methods that seems quite effective, they may choose to publish something about them - often presented as "Look what xxxx are doing now". When such a method meets with wide spread adoption, it is not uncommon for them to be named after the person that first published something about them rather than the actual innovators. Note that, in general, the coach who did the publishing was not in any way trying to take credit for the ideas of others.

Benito Garozzo is an example of soneone who has been very innovative, but has not been very active in publishing his innovations. Nagy and Kokish are examples of the sort of coaches mentioned above. I think we would find that many conventions named after Nagy or Kokish are actually Garozzo innovations, and the naming has happened because of who publicized the method rather than the actual innovator. Please allow me to emphasize that neither Nagy nor Kokish have done anything underhanded. I am sure that either would be quick to credit the actual innovator (who might not have been Benito - we don't really know).

Most of the "Kokish" stuff dates to when he was a prolific bridge writer and before becoming a head coach. Kokish is careful to give credit when due, and generally prefers conventions not to have his name attached. For example he would prefer that 2♣-2♦;-2♥ be called Birthright (see Modern American Bidding by Kokish and Kraft). He did invent the game tries, but would be fine if they were called a name that actually defines them. In typical Kokish science in a team event I remember Kokish-Nagy bidding 1♦-1♥;-2♥-ask;reply, where the reply showed exactly 1-4-7-1, and wondering how Nagy could remember all this. I don't think he would want the Montreal Relay to be called the Kokish relay.

[Siegmund]

Could anyone comment on what the "third" way is? The only Kokish I knew was 2-way (HSGT+SSGT).

[gordontd]

The reason I ask is that 3NT could be your best spot, but there is no way to communicate your 3 card raise playing Kokish that I know of. Do you just agree when playing this method to never raise on 3 pieces?

It sounds as though Bergen's game tries (Better Bidding with Bergen vol 1) might be more suited to what you want, since they're built around distinguishing between three & four-card raises by opener.

[mycroft]

The third is the traditional 1M-2M; 3M, not needed for its normal purpose, becoming a Help Suit Game Try in trumps - "My losers are in Trumps". As a side benefit, can be used as 1-2-3-Stop, when you happen to know that partner doesn't have good enough trumps to accept :-).

[lowerline]

It sounds as though Bergen's game tries (Better Bidding with Bergen vol 1) might be more suited to what you want, since they're built around distinguishing between three & four-card raises by opener.

 

Can you explain how they work?

 

Steven

[lycier]

Could anyone comment on what the "third" way is? The only Kokish I knew was 2-way (HSGT+SSGT).

 

 

yes,yes,same do I. And I guess 3-way Kokish should be nagy game tries actually,what else?

[gordontd]

Can you explain how they work?

 

Steven

After 1m-1♠-2♠:

 

Three-level bids are natural and invitational but non-forcing, usually with only four spades, including the sequence 1♣-1♠-2♠-3♦ which might show something like a 4261 ten-count in a Walsh context.

 

2NT is an artificial invitation, and opener now bids

3m with a flattish minimum with three spades,

3Om or 3OM with a singleton in that suit and three spades,

3NT with a flattish maximum with three spades,

3♠ with a flattish minimum with four spades

4Om or 4OM with a singleton in that suit and four spades,

4♠ with a flattish maximum with four spades,

4m with a 4225 maximum.

 

After 1m -1♥-2♥, the same principles apply except that it makes sense to make 2♠ the enquiry (and now opener's 2NT rebid shows short spades with only three hearts).

 

If you do that, you can play 1m -1♥-2♥-2NT as showing four spades, so that a 4315 hand can raise a 1♥ response but not miss a spade game.

[JLOGIC]

If you often raise with 3 card then I suspect you shouldn't play kokish here.

 

Yeah I don't know kokish game tries but if you raise on 3 then your primary concern should be to be able to show that later. Is it worth giving up raising on 3 so you can play Kokish game tries? That is a decision that is up to you but it seems like you are prioritizing wrong if you are willing to do that.

[Vampyr]

Yeah I don't know kokish game tries but if you raise on 3 then your primary concern should be to be able to show that later.

 

What is a good way to do that? Gordon's scheme sounds interesting but I am looking for the moment for something simpler.

[JLOGIC]

Very simple and effective is over the ask, you just play the first step is 3 trumps min, next step 3 trumps max, next step 4 trumps min, next step 4 step max (3344).

 

If you play these responses I would recommend playing 2N is always the ask rather than first step, not only is it easier to remember, but you don't want to have it go 1m 1H 2H 2S* 2N showing a 3 card minimum raise, most likely you have wrongisded NT since 3 card raises will contain a stiff or a 2 small.

[dustinst22]

Is there some new trend to describe all agreements as "Kokish"?

 

Not sure, just was referring to this method:

 

http://www.doublesqueeze.com/2008/09/three-way-kokish-game-tries.html

 

That said, I've decided to give it up and go with the 3344 responses suggested by Justin when there is a possible 4-3 fit, and use the Kokish (or whatever you want to call it) method described in that article when there is a known 5-3+ fit.

[Phil]

3344 and. kokish GT after a raise in this sequence do not play well together.