Liversidge

[hv=pc=n&w=saq8ha43daqjt98ck&e=sj652h65dk53caj84]266|100[/hv] Partner opened 1♦, I responded 1♠, partner rebid 3♦ and I passed. Should partner have opened 2NT? Or should she have opened 1♦ and rebid 3NT? We play weak 2's. Others playing Acol Strong 2's bid and made 3NT+3 or 5♦+1.

Your guidelines on Teams are very helpful, thanks. We don't play Chicago for money. It's a social thing - we play Chicago about 8 times a year, all day events, four board rounds -None dealer dealer all - scoring each round individually. At the end of the day the raw scores are added up. Are the percentage guidelines ( 35-40%; 45%) roughly the same with raw scoring as for IMPs?

Until recently I have only ever played duplicate but have recently started playing teams and Chicago. My partner thinks that when playing these formats I should be more prepared to take risks when bidding a marginal game or slams. I can understand the importance of not taking risks for overtricks if it might mean going off, - make sure you make your contract. But what about taking risks during bidding? For example, suppose we are playing the weak no trump and the bidding goes 1♥-1♠-2NT (17-18) -? I have 7 HCP and 5 spades. I have assessed that my hand does not warrant an upgrade or downgrade. In duplicate I would pass because we have at most 25 HCP and could have 24 HCP. As I understand it, on average 3NT makes with 25.5 HCP, so the probability of making game with my hand is less than 50%. I reckon I should change my thinking when playing Chicago. If I go 1 off it’s -50/100. If I make game it’s +400/600. I can afford to go off three times out of four and still be in profit in the long term. Am I thinking straight? And if so, does the same thinking apply when playing teams?

Suppose the bidding at favourable vulnerability went 1NT(weak) -(X)-2♠-(3♥) -? Would the answer be the same, i.e. bid to the level of the fit, so pass with 3 spades and bid 3♠ with four spades? And would the answer be the same regardless of whether we are playing duplicate or teams? Partner suggests that it pays to be a bit more aggressive when playing teams so bidding 3♠ with three spades is OK in this situation.

Partner bid 1NT (weak) which was immediately doubled. I bid 2♠ with Kxxxx and nothing else. My LHO passed and partner bid 3S. We went 2 off. Partner justified her bid on the grounds of wanting to make it difficult for our opponents as we were playing Chicago rather than our usual duplicate format. I don't understand the reasoning. I am not sure how many spades partner had but if she had four spades it could be argued that she was bidding to the level of the fit. Are there any circumstances where it is right to raise partner's takeout of a weak No Trump?

We want to develop our preemptive bidding. We have read about the Rule of 2 & 3 where you open to within 2 playing tricks (Vul) or 3 playing tricks (Non Vul) of your bid (Klinger, Hacketts and others) or alternatively the Rule of 2,3,4 at adverse, par and favourable vulnerability (No Fear and others). Then partner counts quick tricks & ruffing tricks and decides whether game looks a reasonable bet. Seems a step forward in partnership bidding, but bidding 3H at favourable vulnerability with only 5 playing tricks on the Rule of 2-3-4 looks rather scary. We play duplicate only. Any advice on which version we should adopt is appreciated.

If responding in a suit, should I always bid my longest suit? I presume that if the choice is between a good 3 card major and a poor 4 card minor at the next level then I should bid the minor.But if I have a choice between a 4 card major and a 5 card minor at the next level, do I bid the minor regardless of suit quality?

2♥ - 2♠ - forcing or non-forcing/constructive? My partner and I are unsure about what our agreement should be. NoFear and Andrew Robson recommend that it should be played as constructive non-forcing, showing no interest in hearts, around 11-15 points and a good 6 card spade suit. Other respected sources recommend playing it as forcing for one round. All of them acknowledge that both approaches are valid. Comments much appreciated.

I have read somewhere (think it's an Andrew Robson book) that with an 8 card fit a suit contract usually plays one trick better than No Trumps, from which I assume that if I can make 12 tricks in spades then it is quite likely that I will make 11 tricks in No Trumps. If I can make 6NT then there is a good chance I will make 13 tricks in spades. I may not have got that right, but if I have then could you help me with this question: We play 1NT = 12-14. Partner opens 1NT and I have 20 points 4432 with a 4 card spade suit. I bid Stayman and partner responds in my major. Now what? Should I not bid 4NT (quantitative) but pursue the spade contract instead, and if so how? Do I bid 5♠? If partner responds 2♥, which does not deny spades, should I give up on spades and bid 4NT (quantitative)?

We play Acol (4 card majors), Jacoby 2NT, opener simple No Trump rebid = 15-17 I have come across a hand where we failed to find a 6NT slam with 34 combined HCP. . I ran it through Jack, set to our conventions, and it failed to find it too. North: ♠9864 ♥A2 ♦AK875 ♣AQ South: ♠AQ ♥KQ83 ♦QT6 ♣KJ62 Jack's advice: North South 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 2♣* 4th suit GF 2NT 3NT P As North's 2NT can be weak (forced to bid), should he have bid 3NT to show 15+, so South can then bid 4NT quantitative? When I changed North's third bid to 3NT Jack passed.

I have come across a system of responses but have forgotten where, or what it is called, and would like to look it up again. It starts ( I think) something like: 2D = waiting, any shape but no good suit (see below) 2H - very weak - no A, K, no two queens Good 5+ card suits and 2_ quick tricks 2S = spades 2NT = hearts 3C = clubs 3D = diamonds.

Thanks. What do you think of the Rule of 2-3-4 for a pair moving on (we hope/think) from novice level? I know good players don't need Rules of X,Y,Z but we still find them helpful in some situations (Rule of 22, Rule of 15, Rule of 11 etc). As a retired teacher I call them my 'scaffolds'. We have good frameworks for bidding in uncontested auctions and for overcalls but when it comes to responding to partner's 3 level preempt with a view to making our contract, we have to guess (poor suit/poor hand or good suit/good hand?). At least with 2 level preempts we can use the 2NT enquiry. For 3 level preempts we think the Rule of 2-3-4 might be better than guessing, although we still have to think about 'seat'. And should we forget about the '4' bit (we only play duplicate)? In Klinger's basic bridge book he just recommends the rule of 2&3)

Why is it not a good idea to make a 2 or 3 level preempt with a side suit void? http://www.cincybridge.com/Lessons/20100117_Opening_Bid_Preempts.pdf

Under EBU regs which if any super accepts are alertable?

In the absence of any partnership agreement, if partner doubles 1NT, my RHO bids 2♠, followed by two passes, if partner doubles again is it for penalties or takeout?

I really thought this would be a straightforward question. I know and have played RKCB 3014 and 1430. Before that I played standard Key Card, which, according to a number of good references, was a recognised extension of Standard Blackwood that was perceived to be better than Standard Blackwood, but was soon overtaken by the much superior RKCB at intermediate level. My question was simply whether Key Card might be a useful stepping stone for an average once a week player wanting to develop, but for whom RKCB might be a rather big leap. I have had some replies that have made me feel like the whole idea is misguided/heretical, that standard Key Card (as per Bridgehands, Bridgeguys, Mr Bridge) is awful, or may never have existed as a recognised variant of Blackwood but is some deviant local abherration, or that RKCB with the peculiar 031422 steps but without any reference whatsoever to the trump queen somehow makes it better than Key Card (anything has to be better than Key Card!), even for someone who might never move on to full RKCB, as is the case with quite a few of my local club members who are happy sticking with standard Key Card. Was it a backward step to make the simple step up to Key Card? Is it likely to have adversely affected their bridge? Others do seem to have recogised that I do have RKCB in mind as a potential ultimate destination for my partner if he wants it, but am thinking that maybe there is plenty of other low hanging fruit we can work on first, such as Negative Doubles, 4th Suit Forcing, cue bid raises, UCB etc.,that come up quite a lot - maybe we should prioritise some of these over advancing straight to RKCB. I don't know the answer, which is why I asked.

When I play RKCB (with one partner), I play the 1430 version, for the simple reason that it is slightly easier to say when asked by opps which version I play ("fourteen thirty") I gather that the 0314 version was the RKCB version first published Bridgeguys.com makes the following distinction between RKCB and Key Card Blackwood: Basic Information From the Blackwood convention, there is the variation of Roman Key Card Blackwood, which is an Ace-asking bid and where the King of Trump is counted as the fifth Ace or Key Card, and Key Card Blackwood. Responses to Key Card Blackwood 5♣ : Shows 0 or 4 Key Cards 5 ♦: Shows 1 or 5 Key Cards 5 ♥: Shows 2 Key Cards 5 ♠: Shows 3 Key Cards Bridgehands.com says: Keycard Blackwood - A slam bidding variation from regular Blackwood, designed to increase the accuracy when considering the potential to reach slam or grandslam. This method recognizes the trump King as equivalent to other Aces, thus five "aces" or keys are considered. In response to a bid of 4 Notrump (Blackwood): Response Meaning 5♣ 0 or 4 keys 5♦ 1 or 5 keys 5♥ 2 keys 5♠ 3 keys

I don't see how his article can in any way be described as a simplified form of RKCB. He doesn't mention the trump queen anywhere in connection with the responses. Anyone who is not already familiar with RKCB would just see it as a 5 ace showing system. How could they see it as anything else? As for his sequences, I missed that, and I think it's counterproductive as it stands. The logical extension to standard Blackwood - 5♦ = 1 or 5, is easier to remember and he gives no explanation for his sequence, which looks odd on the face of it, no hint that it's in preparation for something yet to come. But the point I was making is that he has described / recommended a system called key Card Blackwood, not Roman Keycard, and yet there have been some rather dismissive comments about it's very existance and worth that have rather shaken my tree.

I have just found a source for Key Card Blackwood as I have described it on Richard Pavlicek'website - the Advanced Partnersip Bidding section - under Suit Slam Bidding. http://www.rpbridge.net/3m00.htm What follows is a direct cut and paste. he does not mention RKCB, queen ask etc., just the basic system I have been describing. "The best of the many ace-asking conventions is “key-card” Blackwood. The basic concept is to count the king of trumps — always an important card — just like an ace. Thus there are five key cards, and your partnership needs at least four of them to warrant bidding a slam". From comments made on BBO in the past I gather that he is well respected, which is odd given the comments on this thread about Key Card Blackwood. All very confusing.

That chimes with my thinking. I have been reflecting on the responses and still feel that KCB is an easy and useful step to take. Partner is quick on the uptake and when we have used it a dozen or more times I am sure he will want to find out more about RKCB and we can then discuss it. No doubt a board will appear where knowing the whereabouts of the trump queen will have been a key factor and that will be a good time to talk about it. As one poster has said, we might first try RKCB without the queen ask. Partner is sensible enough to judge whether to just go for it in one or in two stages. We will need to be careful about the responses to the queen ask. There are at least three variants I know of that appear in bridge books and I found it confusing when I first agreed to play it with a former partner. In the end we both bought a copy of the same book and worked from that. One minor problem is that although KCB is quite common in our area, it does not feature in any current books on bidding but I do have a handout that covers it, including how and when the trump suit is/is not agreed.

These replies have really surprised me. I have obviously learned a Blackwood variant that I thought was fairly standard but is in fact very localised. Reappraisal time! A wholly hypothetical question then. If RKCB is too advanced for a beginner's introduction to Ace asking conventions, would Key Card Blackwood not be a better starting point than Standard Blackwood, as it requires very little extra to learn it - just five aces instead of four so highlighting the value of the trump king, and an understanding of how the trump suit is agreed/implied, both of which seem like good preparation for RKCB for not much additional effort. In other words, ignore standard Blackwood altogether.

This is all very interesting. I can see trouble ahead!! Some more Bernard Magee bashing. Quite a few players at my local clubs play KCB. Perhaps it's because of the influence of the Mr Bridge magazine in the UK, and its 'expert', Bernard Magee, who advocates KCB. In fact in this article he suggests that RKCB is for more advanced playersand suggests that your average Mr Bridge reader should stick to KCB. http://www.mrbridge.co.uk/library/Slam_Bidding_Part_1.pdf. Larry Cohen also warns about the dangers of moving to RKCB unless you are an experienced player. He says: "RKC is a useful tool for experienced players. It is probably the method that causes the most accidents. Be prepared to have some catastrophes if you use this convention."

No, it is just the same as Standard Blackwood but with the trump king being treated on the same level as an Ace, so that the absence of two of the five 'aces' would suggest abandoning slam ambition. 5C = 0 or 4, 5D = 1 or 5, 5H = 2, 5S = 3. Seemed like a very simple and logical extension of standard Blackwood, and it was very easy for me to move on to RKCB from there. My biggest problem with moving to RKCB was not unlearning KCB but remembering 1430 / 3014 and the steps after the queen ask, and whether the the third step showed the cheapest king or a specific king. I had two partners and they played different versions. At least with KCB there was only one version.

I learned it from Mr Bridge in my first year playing bridge. There are other references that suggest it was popular for a time before being overtaken by RKCB. http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/key_card_blackwood.html https://www.bridgehands.com/K/Key_Card_Blackwood.htm So presumably it had some merit, but from the comments so far, not a lot.

One of my partners is probably at novice level when bidding but a good player of hands. He is keen to progress and we spend an hour a week discussing our system away from the bridge table. He has learned standard Blackwood but has asked about Roman Key Blackwood as he hears so much about That is where we should be heading in due course but I have been wondering whether we should start with standard Keycard as an interim step - it is easier to remember and the continuations are straightforward. As far as I could see we would just need to reach agreement on when the trump suit has been implicitly / explicitly agreed. I found it easier to get my head round RKCB (queen ask and responses) after I had played KCB for a couple of years. When I check on line resources I rarely find anyone mentioning KCB. It seems to be always standard Blackwood for beginners but stressing that RKCB is much superior and strongly recommending moving straight to itas soon as possible. Is there any merit in the Standard -> KCB -> RKCB progression or should we at some point just skip straight to RKCB?