I [heart] Kokish

[fromageGB]

I assume with H>S opener would use the 2H puppet and then raise spades. 2C 2D 2H* 2S* 3S

With S>H or 55 opener bids a natural 2C 2D 2S 3x 3H

(assuming you mean 2NT rather than 3x)

You could, but I have always bid spades before hearts when I am 56xx. It depends on your opinions of the strong hand being dummy.

[fromageGB]

And some reverse the two ranges, rebidding 2H with the weaker, so as to make use of the extra space with transfers that allow you to get out in 3 of a minor with a complete bust.

Has merits if you believe a weak long suit should bid 2♦ in the first place. Some prefer to bid a transfer immediately over the 2♣. If you do that, the NT ladder is more intuitive, as when you bid NT the more bids the stronger the hand.

[jillybean]

(assuming you mean 2NT rather than 3x)

You could, but I have always bid spades before hearts when I am 56xx. It depends on your opinions of the strong hand being dummy.

2N or 3x by responder.

 

If you bid spades before hearts when you are 56xx , you will never show the 6th heart?

[fromageGB]

If you bid spades before hearts when you are 56xx , you will never show the 6th heart?

I prefer the 2♣ hand to be hidden, so yes, I treat it as 5-5. Another reason for this is that if responder has heart preference, doing it your suggested way he is bidding over 3♠. How does he support hearts? 4m would be a cue but it could be in either hearts or spades, while 4M would be a sign-off. This is an aspect of the "preference /strength" difficulty I have mentioned before.

 

Conversely, by bidding spades then hearts, you can agree that over the 3♥, 4m is a cue agreeing hearts. If you have a hand you want to cue bid agreeing spades, you start with 3♠ to set the suit, then your normal cue bidding (whatever method that is) applies.

[Zelandakh]

(you could say it was a "semi-puppet" if you like,

The proper term for a "semi-puppet" is a marionette. Technically Kokish itself is a marionette since Responder is allowed to bid something other than 2♠ over 2♥. It is only a puppet sequence if 2♠ is forced.

 

Anyway, put me in the 1♠ opening camp. Mike's post seems to sum up most of what I thought so no need to repeat it.

[jillybean]

I prefer the 2♣ hand to be hidden, so yes, I treat it as 5-5. Another reason for this is that if responder has heart preference, doing it your suggested way he is bidding over 3♠. How does he support hearts? 4m would be a cue but it could be in either hearts or spades, while 4M would be a sign-off. This is an aspect of the "preference /strength" difficulty I have mentioned before.

 

Conversely, by bidding spades then hearts, you can agree that over the 3♥, 4m is a cue agreeing hearts. If you have a hand you want to cue bid agreeing spades, you start with 3♠ to set the suit, then your normal cue bidding (whatever method that is) applies.

Hmm, thanks. I have to think through this some more.

Missing a 6-2 or 6-3 heart fit is less of a problem than bidding after 2C 2D 2H 2S* 3S etc?

[jillybean]

Does this make sense?

 

2C 2D 2H* 2S* 3H 3N* where 3N is a 'serious 3N' style, slammish in hearts. If responder had a hand suitable for nt they would have bid it after 2H

conversely,

2C 2D 2H* 2N 3H 3N is natural

[PhilKing]

Does this make sense?

 

2C 2D 2H* 2S* 3H 3N* where 3N is a 'serious 3N' style, slammish in hearts. If responder had a hand suitable for nt they would have bid it after 2H

conversely,

2C 2D 2H* 2N 3H 3N is natural

 

No.

 

Partner most definitely could not bid NTs naturally over 2♥. And don't forget that opener could jump to 3♥ over 2♦, so we are not locked into hearts here.

[fromageGB]

Missing a 6-2 or 6-3 heart fit is less of a problem than bidding after 2C 2D 2H 2S* 3S etc?

My method gets you to an inferior contract if responder is short and equal length in both majors, but I would be happy to live with the possibility for the sake of the clarity in continuations.

 

Does this make sense?

 

(1) 2C 2D 2H* 2S* 3H 3N* where 3N is a 'serious 3N' style, slammish in hearts. If responder had a hand suitable for nt they would have bid it after 2H

conversely,

(2) 2C 2D 2H* 2N 3H 3N is natural

(1) Yes to the first sentence. A hand with agreed number of controls. No to the second sentence. For me I would never play a NT bid by responder as natural to play. When opener is that strong with a long suit, I must be almost AK in all 3 other suits to want to play in NT, and in that case I would check the solidity of hearts and then bid slam! Or just show all the controls and allow opener to bid the slam. So 3NT would always be a cue bid (or serious) of some sort.

 

(2) seems improbable. Why is responder not bidding the 2S relay? If your method is to allow a long-suited responder to show a suit at the second bid (mine is at the first bid) then 2NT would be a transfer to 3♣ I guess. What is 3H? If it is a game force showing hearts, and allowing a retransfer if responder has no fit, then 3NT would be again a cue or serious with a fit. Maybe you had the sequence wrong?

 

I think you mean it as stated, so no, never. Why wrong side a NT contract if opener has a balanced hand without hearts? What is opener supposed to do when you don't know how strong he is, nor he you?

[jillybean]

My method gets you to an inferior contract if responder is short and equal length in both majors, but I would be happy to live with the possibility for the sake of the clarity in continuations.

 

 

(1) Yes to the first sentence. A hand with agreed number of controls. No to the second sentence. For me I would never play a NT bid by responder as natural to play. When opener is that strong with a long suit, I must be almost AK in all 3 other suits to want to play in NT, and in that case I would check the solidity of hearts and then bid slam! Or just show all the controls and allow opener to bid the slam. So 3NT would always be a cue bid (or serious) of some sort.

Good, thanks.

 

 

 

(2) seems improbable. Why is responder not bidding the 2S relay? If your method is to allow a long-suited responder to show a suit at the second bid (mine is at the first bid) then 2NT would be a transfer to 3♣ I guess. What is 3H? If it is a game force showing hearts, and allowing a retransfer if responder has no fit, then 3NT would be again a cue or serious with a fit. Maybe you had the sequence wrong?

 

I think you mean it as stated, so no, never. Why wrong side a NT contract if opener has a balanced hand without hearts? What is opener supposed to do when you don't know how strong he is, nor he you?

OK, it seemed a good idea at the time but makes no sense now.

[monikrazy]

Agree w/ other posters who prefer 1♠ opening.

 

The biggest problem stretching to 2♣ for me is that constricting the bidding space makes it hard to judge whether 3NT is the best spot (regardless of your response system).

 

1♠ open and a reverse should allow us both plenty of space to decide the right contract and describe our shape. I would be more worried about bidding too high and going down than 1♠ being passed out.

 

Edit: While technically not a reverse (we can have a 'high reverse') I think my meaning that we have plenty of bids to express our extra values was clear.

[jillybean]

Ok, its unanimous that this is not a 2♣ opening :)

 

btw, you can't reverse after opening 1♠

[fromageGB]

Ok, its unanimous that this is not a 2♣ opening :)

But that's not the point. When you are trying something new you need to make unusual distortions and overly optimistic or pessimistic views to stretch to making the new bid, to get the practice. In your shoes, it's a clear 2♣ open. :)

When we started with transfer walsh (12-14 or 17+) we included 11s, poor 15s, good 16s, and opened it every other hand, almost.