[Zelandakh]

 nige1, on 2013-February-10, 06:03, said:

IMO kickback is not that difficult provided that you agree a bid is kickback if it can possibly be kickback.

Funnily enough I recommend precisely the opposite of this. If a bid is logically natural then it stays natural. If it is logically not natural - splinter, cue, etc - then it is Kickback and 4NT gets the meaning of the replaced call. I think this represents the minimum change from standard methods and makes it quite easy to see when Kickback is on and when not. To optimise, more complex rules are useful; but just the basic method is beneficial and good enough on all but a tiny fraction of cases.

[campboy]

 Cthulhu D, on 2013-February-05, 17:48, said:

It's best to work out cases where an option gains or loses - and yeah, I think that makes the tradeoff something like 1430 is superior when hearts are trumps and you need to find out about the queen, and 0314 is better when clubs are trumps, you cannot tolerate an answer of zero key cards from partner, and you have no other way to find things out.

It's worth bearing in mind that 1430 also gains when clubs are trumps if you are confident partner isn't going to have none but need to find out whether he has one or two (or three). In my experience this has been more frequent than the situation when you need to know whether he has one or none.

[nige1]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-February-11, 03:01, said:

Funnily enough I recommend precisely the opposite of this. If a bid is logically natural then it stays natural. If it is logically not natural - splinter, cue, etc - then it is Kickback and 4NT gets the meaning of the replaced call. I think this represents the minimum change from standard methods and makes it quite easy to see when Kickback is on and when not. To optimise, more complex rules are useful; but just the basic method is beneficial and good enough on all but a tiny fraction of cases.

Fair enough. The main thing is to have a rule about when such a bid is kickback. But I prefer Zelandakh's phraseology e.g. I like "when a bid could logically be kickback it is".

[Fluffy]

 fromageGB, on 2013-February-10, 05:07, said:

I take the point, but "knowledge" of what aces and kings partner has sure beats "judgement" of them. You need judgement (and agreed methods) to decide when a slam might be a good idea, but then knowledge takes over.

Judgement will force you to understand when blackwood is needed and when i is not. Blackwood is the most missused convention, or it was, before kickback was invented.

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-February-11, 03:01, said:

Funnily enough I recommend precisely the opposite of this. If a bid is logically natural then it stays natural. If it is logically not natural - splinter, cue, etc - then it is Kickback and 4NT gets the meaning of the replaced call. I think this represents the minimum change from standard methods and makes it quite easy to see when Kickback is on and when not. To optimise, more complex rules are useful; but just the basic method is beneficial and good enough on all but a tiny fraction of cases.

1♥-(P)-4♠. Is 4♠ Kickback or natural? Assume, for the sake of argument, that Exclusion KCB is not in the picture.

[TylerE]

100% kickback. 1♠ is forcing.

That said, it wouldn't be terrible to set a rule that responder can never kickback with his FIRST bid, and must bid something else forcing first, e.g. 1♥-2♣-2NT-4♠, or something.

[ArtK78]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-11, 14:41, said:

1♥-(P)-4♠. Is 4♠ Kickback or natural? Assume, for the sake of argument, that Exclusion KCB is not in the picture.

Sure it is kickback if you play it as kickback. But it should be Ace Only Kickback. If you want to ask for key cards, make a forcing raise first.

If all you want to do is bid game in spades, you can bid 1♠ first.

There really is not much of a need for 1♥-4♠ to be kickback. You can always make a forcing raise first. So, you can agree that, in this one case, 4♠ is to play.

I have stated in other threads that 1x-4NT should be Aces Only (not key card) Blackwood, as you can always make a forcing raise followed by 4NT (or whatever other call would be RKCB) if you want to ask for keycards. And every so often you run into a hand where the only thing you want to know is how many aces partner has. For example, partner opens 1♠ and you hold:

x
KQJTxxxx
A
KQJ

I had a hand like this in a swiss teams sometime ago. I asked for aces, found partner with all the missing aces and bid 7NT. While it was good that we had this agreement which made the bidding simple, I did not expect to win a swing on the hand. But our opps (who had only about 30000 masterpoints between them) had a problem and did not reach the grand. I believe that one of our teammates threw in a large preempt in diamonds after my hand made some otherwise rational response to 1♠, such as 2♥.

[nige1]

Feb Bridge World has a relevant article Ten Blackwood Questions by Danny Kleinman

[PhilKing]

 nige1, on 2013-February-11, 17:13, said:

Feb Bridge World has a relevant article Ten Blackwood Questions by Danny Kleinman

Cliff notes?

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-11, 14:41, said:

1♥-(P)-4♠. Is 4♠ Kickback or natural? Assume, for the sake of argument, that Exclusion KCB is not in the picture.

I do not think it really matters very much, do you? But for the sake of argument, it is logical for this bid to be natural with XRKCB not being played, so let's make it natural. If wanting to ask for key cards then start with 2NT. If wanting to find out only about aces then respond 4NT. Think of it this way, if you were not playing Kickback or XRKCB then it is clear that 4♠ would be natural, right? Then it retains this meaning when you add (simple version) Kickback.

[fromageGB]

The argument about logicality is not really appropriate. A bid can logically be to play, while at the same time it is logically natural. You do need a rule (or a few for certain situations) to tell you. An example is
1♥ 1♠ 3♣ 4♠ (playing 2 over 1 with a natural spade that may be in a strong hand).
4♠ is logically to play, as responder has a 10 count and a whole string of spades.
4♠ is logically ace asking, as responder has a 5324 15 count.

Which? Both are logical, so you need an agreement that in ambiguity you can differentiate. Rather than bidding 4♠, you can bid 4SF 3♦ and then follow that with 4♠, for example, to mean "natural", if an immediate 4♠ is ace asking. Or vice-versa.

[blackshoe]

 fromageGB, on 2013-February-12, 06:21, said:

The argument about logicality is not really appropriate. A bid can logically be to play, while at the same time it is logically natural. You do need a rule (or a few for certain situations) to tell you. An example is
1♥ 1♠ 3♣ 4♠ (playing 2 over 1 with a natural spade that may be in a strong hand).
4♠ is logically to play, as responder has a 10 count and a whole string of spades.
4♠ is logically ace asking, as responder has a 5324 15 count.

Which? Both are logical, so you need an agreement that in ambiguity you can differentiate. Rather than bidding 4♠, you can bid 4SF 3♦ and then follow that with 4♠, for example, to mean "natural", if an immediate 4♠ is ace asking. Or vice-versa.

This was basically my point - Zel's rules as to when 4♠ is Kickback aren't enough.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-12, 10:36, said:

This was basically my point - Zel's rules as to when 4♠ is Kickback aren't enough.

Aren't they? You have a system you play with a regular partner and understand well. So you know when 4♠ (or 4♥, etc) in that system is natural and when it is something else. The rule I suggested for players first dabbling with Kickback is that when the bid would have been natural in the base system, it remains natural. When it was artificial in the base system and 4NT would have been RKCB, then these 2 calls are reversed. It really is that simple. I agree that it is not optimal, that is a different thing entirely. As a pair becomes more acquainted with using Kickback then they will almost certainly wish to add additional rules; but the simple systems method is completely playable and a decent bridge between 4NT asking and a full Kickback method with many rules.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-February-13, 03:00, said:

Aren't they? You have a system you play with a regular partner and understand well. So you know when 4♠ (or 4♥, etc) in that system is natural and when it is something else. The rule I suggested for players first dabbling with Kickback is that when the bid would have been natural in the base system, it remains natural. When it was artificial in the base system and 4NT would have been RKCB, then these 2 calls are reversed. It really is that simple. I agree that it is not optimal, that is a different thing entirely. As a pair becomes more acquainted with using Kickback then they will almost certainly wish to add additional rules; but the simple systems method is completely playable and a decent bridge between 4NT asking and a full Kickback method with many rules.

I think the issue may be that the bid was natural in the base system simply by default -- they weren't using that bid for anything else. Kickback is what adds the possibility of an artificial meaning for these bids.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-February-13, 10:41, said:

I think the issue may be that the bid was natural in the base system simply by default -- they weren't using that bid for anything else. Kickback is what adds the possibility of an artificial meaning for these bids.

Precisely.

[fromageGB]

 barmar, on 2013-February-13, 10:41, said:

I think the issue may be that the bid was natural in the base system simply by default -- they weren't using that bid for anything else. Kickback is what adds the possibility of an artificial meaning for these bids.

So Zel is saying that is perfectly possible for non-kickbackers who want to try it out, to play a 4-bid as kickback when it cannot have a natural meaning - there must be plenty of those possible - and where it could be ambiguous because there is a natural meaning, let the meaning BE natural, and just use the old 4NT for aces whatever the suit, as you used to do anyway.

I think this is a valid approach to starting out on kickback. If you like it when you can do it, then you can agree rules to cover the ambiguities and let it develop to handle all cases.

[noahapteke]

1430 is generally played more often by the top pairs. Straight Blackwood is definitely not the way to progress and 3014 makes it tougher for you to find out about the queen after the 5♦ response when the agreed suit is ♥, whereas in 1430 if partner responds 5♦ showing 0 key cards that generally isn't the response you were hoping for and you just sign out.

[1eyedjack]

1430 is theoretically marginally better than 3041j which in turn is better than straight bw.

but the marginal theoretical advantage is small. So if partner has a preference, let him have his way

[kenrexford]

 PhilKing, on 2013-February-06, 10:36, said:

I suspect OP would rather play nothing at all rather than TWO forms of RKCB. Next we'll be sending him a copy of Ken's latest book. The man wants to play something simple - I suggest we let him.

:-)

[Vampyr]

No one seems to have mentioned Josephine...