A bit of systems tinkering

[Cyberyeti]

I'm putting together a complicated system of responses to a weak no trump, and have hit a recurring scenario. I'd be interested to see what the theorists here come up with.

 

You have shown as the NT opener as a response to an artificial transfer sequence, the K and/or A of partner's suit and 3 or more (partner will have 6 or 7), so you guarantee one key card. The maximum number of key cards you can hold is 3+Q as you're limited to 14 points.

 

Getting to this point has consumed some space (and you've shown some other shape on your way), and partner's ace ask will be say 4♥ if clubs are agreed (basically you have one bid less than you would to standard kickback).

 

How would you rig the responses ? and does anybody else use a modified form of ace enquiry when there are constraints on responder's hand (like they've opened weak 2) ?

[PhilKing]

For me, RKCB here is a little high, however you modify it, but opposite the range you give, it is can only be tweaked in the sense that zero is impossible. You can come at it from the opposite angle of the card already shown being ignored, but in that case RCK is still nearly as good as anything. If 4♥ would be your only way of agreeing clubs in the hypothetical situation, then I would just play cues over it (If other bids are cues for ♣ obv then 4♥ is an ask).

 

To still get to grands after cues, use 5♦ as "sand wedge" RKCB. And if partner bids beyond 5m after an exchange of cues, he does so with a "sand wedge" response.

 

If the asker is balanced, you could play 4♥ as a general control ask (a=2 K=1). Rosenkranz had a method for this (confit), but you have to learn a table of expected controls for each balanced range. From memory, for a weak NT the expected min was 3 (obv you could have less, but that all gets lumped in step 1). Responses would be step 1 = 0-3, 2 = 4, 3 = 5 and 4 = 6. When I played this I went down a notch and played step 1 as 0-2. After showing aggregate aces and kings we relayed for specific queens.

 

The trouble here is that you are relaying with a hand that is probably unbalanced that may need to know which side kings are held and basically you are just to high to find out.

[kenrexford]

Strange you should ask.

 

I have just written up a method I tentatively call VKCB, or variable Key Card Blackwood. The basic idea is a fusion of RKCB and Culbertson's 4/5NT convention. The responses to "RKCB" are limited to an expected range of normal responses (sometimes expectations are forced), with three main versions -- WKCB (Weak KCB), SKCB (Strong KCB), and MKCB (Medium KCB). I then use this general approach to allow (1) discovery of whether the key cards do or do not include the trump King, (2) discovery in some auctions where the Queen is denied whether the Jack is included, and (3) in some auctions addition into the answers one (or even two) other "key" cards, like for instance the King of a naturally bid suit, a Queen of that suit, etc.

 

I will get back on this in about 2-3 weeks.

[Cyberyeti]

What I was thinking was something like (not sure if asking for doubleton better than asking for side Qs if 3 controls): this relies on the fact that for a weak 1N opener you can only have 3 keycards and one queen or more rarely one side king.

 

Clubs agreed 4♥ ask

 

4♠ = 1 or 3

4N = 2 without Q♣

5♣ = 2 with Q♣

 

over 4♠

 

4N asks for the Q♣ opposite 1

 

if the opener needs 3 he signs off in 5♣ but responder bids again if he holds 3

 

5♦ = 3 without any Q NOT 4333, 3+Q♣ or 3 and a side K over which

: 5♥ asks for the side K and you have 3 bids to show the 3 suits

: 5♠ asks for Q♣ - 5N says no but I have a side K in case that's enough for 6/7N

 

5♥/♠/N = 3 without Q♣ but a queen in ♥/♠/♦ (much more common than 3 and a king)

 

6♣ = 3 with no Q 4333

[PhilKing]

What I was thinking was something like (not sure if asking for doubleton better than asking for side Qs if 3 controls): this relies on the fact that for a weak 1N opener you can only have 3 keycards and one queen or more rarely one side king.

 

You would probably like Segalwood (by Oliver Segal):

 

5C 0-1 or 3

5D 1.5 or 3.5

5H/S as per rkcb

 

Trump queen and maybe bid kings count as half subject to certain rules.

[kenrexford]

You are not yet spotting the key to unlocking what you are seeking, despite being so close. I'll give you a clue. VKCB could be called Kickback Three-Way Roman Key Card Culbertson, Wrapped Around Maximums, With Byzantine Redundancy-Avoidance Scans for Non-Maximums, Plus Jack Ask. Should be easy to work out, now.

[Cascade]

To still get to grands after cues, use 5♦ as "sand wedge" RKCB. And if partner bids beyond 5m after an exchange of cues, he does so with a "sand wedge" response.

 

Is there a link to this method?

[PhilKing]

Is there a link to this method?

 

It's home grown, but the concept is simple. If in minor suit auctions your method is to use 4NT as encouraging rather than ace asking, you can designate 5m+1 as RKCB. The concept of the weaker hand bidding beyond 5m with a key card response is a little trickier, but is possible in defined auctions.

 

The same principle applies in major-suit cue auctions where you have by-passed 4NT. It's common in auctions where we come in over a preempt. Sand wedge covers all GSF issues as well.

[Cyberyeti]

You would probably like Segalwood (by Oliver Segal):

 

5C 0-1 or 3

5D 1.5 or 3.5

5H/S as per rkcb

 

Trump queen and maybe bid kings count as half subject to certain rules.

This is reasonable for general use, but not in the precise situation for which I'm developing this system.

[kenrexford]

For your specific situation (MKCB):

 

Kickback ask.

 

Step1: 2 keys (+1 asks for Queen to bid past 5agreed, if not, sign off if AK, +1 from ask if AA)

 

Step 2: 1 key (+1 asks for Queen)

 

Step 3: AAK, no Q, or 0 keys without Q

 

Step 4: AAA, no Q, or 0 keys plus Q

P

Step 5+: AAKQ (or AAAQ if possible), specific additional feature (Jack? Doubleton?); could opt 5NT (or 5trump+1) if AAKQ

 

After Step 1 or 2 Queen-ask and denied, +1 asks for trump Jack -- if not bid 5NT (or 5trump+1)

 

If need AAQ after Step 1, +2 asks. Can then also ask for AAJ.

[Zelandakh]

Since you are willing to commit to slam opposite 3 with or without the trump queen you should probably zoom those past 5♣ in the initial responses. That is

 

4♠ = 1 (4NT Q ask, 5♦ K ask)

4NT = 2 without Q (5♦ K ask)

5♣ = 2 with Q (5♦ K ask)

5♦ = 3 without Q and no side king

5♥♠ = 3 without Q, K of suit bid

5NT = 3 without Q, ♦K

6♣ = 3 with Q

 

Obviously 5♦ and 5NT could be reversed if desired. The nice part of this is that it is essentially identical to normal RKCB except that you miss out the 0/3 response and zoom with it instead.

 

Anothet thing worth considering here would be to use Control Points and effectively switch to a relay system. That would definitely need testing to see if it were more effective than the alternatives though.

[kenrexford]

Since you are willing to commit to slam opposite 3 with or without the trump queen you should probably zoom those past 5♣ in the initial responses. That is

 

4♠ = 1 (4NT Q ask, 5♦ K ask)

4NT = 2 without Q (5♦ K ask)

5♣ = 2 with Q (5♦ K ask)

5♦ = 3 without Q and no side king

5♥♠ = 3 without Q, K of suit bid

5NT = 3 without Q, ♦K

6♣ = 3 with Q

 

Obviously 5♦ and 5NT could be reversed if desired. The nice part of this is that it is essentially identical to normal RKCB except that you miss out the 0/3 response and zoom with it instead.

 

Anothet thing worth considering here would be to use Control Points and effectively switch to a relay system. That would definitely need testing to see if it were more effective than the alternatives though.

see my post, where I handle 0 and can identify trump K and need not commit unless 3 AND Q, and can even check on trump J.

[Zelandakh]

see my post, where I handle 0 and can identify trump K and need not commit unless 3 AND Q, and can even check on trump J.

Frst of all, handling 0 is a non-issue (see the OP). Secondly, your scheme would commit the partnership to slam with 0 key cards plus the trump queen (if this were possible). It also leaves no space for a queen ask below 5♣ with 1 key card. In other words, yours is better with AAK and no ♣Q when we do not want to go to slam opposite this but worse with 1 key card when Asker does not have the ♣Q. My money is on the latter being more common.

[Cyberyeti]

Zel beat me to what I was about to say about Ken's post.

 

On Zel's post, you could still use an ambiguous 4♠ as 1 or rarely say 3 with a K or Q trumps then over 5♣ show which.

 

This than means that you can use a direct 5♦ as 3 without a side K or Q but a doubleton with a relay to ask which.

 

5♥/♠/N show a side Q (with 3 controls)

 

6♣ is 3 without a side card and no doubleton

[kenrexford]

I started by saying kickback, not realizing that your ask is kickback +1. That does cause a problem. Is it systemically critical to not play kickback as the ask?

[Zelandakh]

The problem is this - we have 6 basic hand types (1, 1+Q, 2, 2+Q, 3, 3+Q) but only space for 4 below 5♣. That means that 3 and 3+Q have to commit to slam. You can do this directly, thus making a 4♠ response unambiguously 1 (or 1+Q) or you can bundle it into this 4♠ response. It do not think this makes a big difference and would personally just do whichever seemed more logical within the confines of the system. I suggested it one way because of the similarities with RKCB but the other way is also fine.

[Cyberyeti]

I started by saying kickback, not realizing that your ask is kickback +1. That does cause a problem. Is it systemically critical to not play kickback as the ask?

Reviewing what I have so far, there are a few situations where it is critical, but in most of those the doubleton will already be known, normal kickback can be used in the others.

[kenrexford]

The problem is this - we have 6 basic hand types (1, 1+Q, 2, 2+Q, 3, 3+Q) but only space for 4 below 5♣. That means that 3 and 3+Q have to commit to slam. You can do this directly, thus making a 4♠ response unambiguously 1 (or 1+Q) or you can bundle it into this 4♠ response. It do not think this makes a big difference and would personally just do whichever seemed more logical within the confines of the system. I suggested it one way because of the similarities with RKCB but the other way is also fine.

I am not sure of the options available, but you might be able to use immediate answers as the solution, if nothing else is needed. In other words, if instead of 4H asking when clubs are trumps, the person normally asking bids 4H, 4S, 4NT, or 5C as if partner had bid 4D?

[Cyberyeti]

I am not sure of the options available, but you might be able to use immediate answers as the solution, if nothing else is needed. In other words, if instead of 4H asking when clubs are trumps, the person normally asking bids 4H, 4S, 4NT, or 5C as if partner had bid 4D?

The aim is to get the unbalanced hand to do the asking as the weak no trumper's hand is much easier to define completely. There are some situations where this might be a good idea if the weak no trump would otherwise ask.

[kenrexford]

The aim is to get the unbalanced hand to do the asking as the weak no trumper's hand is much easier to define completely. There are some situations where this might be a good idea if the weak no trump would otherwise ask.

An immediate answer is not yielding captaincy if viewed as a conditional ask. In other words, "answer the next question if you would bid this or better in response to me asking."