[AyunuS]

http://tinyurl.com/kxl7hhu

Ouch. Can 3♦ really be passed here with only 4♦?

[Stephen Tu]

No, especially since 3♦ is artificial and can have club support. The continuations after 2c-2d-3c and 2c-2d-3d have been broken for ages. Personally I have come to the conclusion that it's not practical to play a 2nd negative after 3c, and that 3M should just be 5 cd suit nat forcing ambiguous strength, and 3d should be most other hands maybe looking for a 4-4 major fit. Then these hands can at least get to 4s which has some play and makes on misdefense on the actual cards.

I think the strong hand on this board is somewhat marginal for a 2c opener (should be more conservative with minor suits, especially such a mediocre primary suit).

Without a 2nd neg one can no longer stop short of game in 4c, but it's kind of rare one is able to do that anyway, and I think minor suit 2c openers should be strong enough that game has some chances even if responder has nothing but some shape if you find a fit.

[1eyedjack]

Given all the other so called modern trends that GIB has been happy to adopt, I find it strange that GIB does not use some sensible responses to 2C such as Kokish.

2C-2D
2N (tfr to Clubs)
-----3C (accept)
3D (2nd suit, F)

If not strong enough to force, don't open 2C. End of.

[ArtK78]

1eyedjack, on 2013-July-24, 13:22, said:

Given all the other so called modern trends that GIB has been happy to adopt, I find it strange that GIB does not use some sensible responses to 2C such as Kokish.

2C-2D
2N (tfr to Clubs)
-----3C (accept)
3D (2nd suit, F)

If not strong enough to force, don't open 2C. End of.

Huh? Never heard of this one.

You say this is part of Kokish? If there is a website that spells this out, I would like to see it.

[1eyedjack]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-24, 13:32, said:

Huh? Never heard of this one.

You say this is part of Kokish? If there is a website that spells this out, I would like to see it.

Ok that was the way it was explained to me and described to me as Kokish. The name may be misplaced but I took it in good faith. Once it made sense I had no interest in checking the etymology. Now I am interested, however - no wish to propogate an error.

Basic scheme

2C-2D-2H = Hearts or balanced, (sort of akin to Sontag 1H rebid after precision 1C-1D-1H)
2C-2D-2H-2S= waiting, 2N = balanced, others = Hearts + further description
2C-2D-2S = Spades
2C-2D-2N = Clubs (accept with nothing particular to say, then opener describes further)
2C-2D-3C = Diamonds (as above)

2C-2N = Clubs (with bal hand start with 2D)
2C-3C = Diamonds

Obviously there are some detailed followups, but you get the drift. Not Kokish, then?

[Stephen Tu]

No, that's definitely not Kokish. In Kokish, one still has 2c-2d-2nt as 22-24 NF, you are keeping a non-GF bal range in there. In your scheme, either the 22-24 has to go into another opening altogether, or I am confused. Or you are playing that 2c-2d-2h-2s-2nt is still 22-24, in which case you have to bid 3nt with 25+, which is awkward to bid over, which is what std Kokish is trying to avoid by freeing the 3 level to bid over 25+ bal. Std Kokish is 2c-2d-2h-2s-2nt is 25+ bal, then systems on so you can sort out major fits and play 3nt otherwise even when responder is broke.

And I would say that's far too complicated, GIB has to cater to all users, so it should be more natural and not use even just Kokish IMO.

[1eyedjack]

OK I have done a bit of googling and I have to agree that I have not found the method described to me as being entirely consistent with Kokish as acknowledged by anyone else (although there are some similarities).

That said, the descriptions of "true" Kokish that I have been reading are not particularly consistent one with the other.

I feel bound to say that on the grounds of frequency I am unconvinced that the value of splitting the 22-24 balanced hands from 25+ balanced hands outstrip the benefits of (in my methods) a transfer to the minors and ability to continue hand description, whatever that method might be called, if it has a name.

I agree however that GIB needs to be programmed with a method in common usage. If this hand happens to be well suited to my methods, but ill suited to any common usage (Kokish or otherwise) then we just have to accept that this hand will forever be unbiddable with accuracy in GIB Nirvana.

[cloa513]

This would be simpler-
Leave 2 levels as currently GIB defined.
Redefine
2C,3C as very weak clubs suit.
2C, 3D as better clubs suit but not great major interest.
2C, 2D, 3C (either minor with one major (3 or 4 card))- you can force more with a hand that seriously considers slam or just dislikes one major and not many aces e.g. singleton/void in one major.

2C, 2D, 3D (both majors and a minor)
2C,3D, 3H (minors or clubs)
2C,3D,3S (diamonds or too strong no trumps for any other bid)