[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-12, 01:47, said:

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]

wank, on 2013-April-11, 22:19, said:

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]

mike777, on 2013-April-11, 15:54, said:

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.