Specific suit RKC ask after pattern resolution...

[akhare]

After pattern resolution (using ~symmetric relays), we play:

 

3N: To play

4♦: Canonical terminator puppet

S1: QP ask

S2: Always RKC in ♣

S3: Always RKC in ♦

S4: Always RKC in ♥

S5: Always RKC in ♠

 

For example, after 3♦, showing say a 5=4=3=1 pattern, 3♠ will always be RKC in ♣.

 

To me, it seems that this treatment is suboptimal, if not downright silly.

 

IMO, it's much better to play Richard's Moscito treatment, i.e. RKC based on suit length, with ties broken in suit order. In other words, in the above case, 3♠ is RKC ♠, 4♣ is RKC ♥ and so forth.

 

Comments?

[Free]

If you use fixed suits, it's better to use the order ♥-♠-♣-♦ because for the respective game contracts you get similar amounts of bidding space. For example, after 3♦ showing a 5=4=3=1 pattern, 4♣ as RKC ♠ gives us the opportunity to play 4♠ unless partner has 2+Q. In your system, 4♠ is RKC ♠ which forces us to the 5-level.

 

When using variable RKC (like I used when playing MOSCITO), I believe the following is optimal:

- the order is: suits longest to shortest

- when suits have equal length, prioritize as follows: ♥ > ♠ > ♣ > ♦

[straube]

We just got burnt not being able to RKC cheaply for a 6-cd long heart suit. OTOH, it's been nice to RKC for the minors on occasion since we run out of room so quickly. Perhaps some rules melding longest suits with minors would work. Like ties go to the minor.

[akhare]

OTOH, it's been nice to RKC for the minors on occasion since we run out of room so quickly. Perhaps some rules melding longest suits with minors would work. Like ties go to the minor.

 

Richard had the following comment in his document and I think it makes sense. The minor suit ask will still be cheap assuming that it's the longest or second longest suit.

 

 

Any other bid by the relay asker is 1430 Roman Key Card Blackwood, simultaneously setting the trump suit and asking for Aces. If the relay asker makes the lowest unreserved bid, he is bidding RKCB in partner's longest suit. If the relay asker makes the second

unreserved bid, he is bidding RKCB in partner's second longest suit. Ties are broken in order ♥> ♠> ♣> ♦.

 

There are very logical reasons to adopt this ordering structure when breaking ties. We initially base the asking order on RR's suit length because we are most likely to want to be able to set RR's long suit as trump. The order in which we resolve ties is designed to maximize the amount of bidding space available before passing the safety level for a given hand. There is less room to explore for game versus slam when hearts are trump than when spades are trump. As such, we ask about hearts before asking about spades.

[benlessard]

our rules are the following. Like Free its longest to shortest but never in a singleton or void, and its HSCD priority when equal. We dont stop in 4Nt or 5Nt. 4NT is a GST in clubs when 5C would be to play and we didnt have enough space to do C RKC. Extra space could be void showing but we are never using them.

 

If we end in 4D we don't keycard we ask for min max instead.

 

If we end in 4C or 3Nt and both M are possible then 4D is PES (Polish end signal)

 

EX

6043 ending at 4C

 

only 1M is possible so 4D PES doesnt apply.

 

4D = S KC

4H = D RKC

4S to play

4Nt C slam try

 

6421 ending at 3Nt.

Both M are possible so 4D PES apply

 

4C=S RKC

4D= PES

4H=H RKC

4S=D RKC

[yunling]

I think you don't really have much problem when your shape relay ends at 3♥ or lower.

 

After 3♥, it sounds very good to use

3♠ QP ask

3N To play

4♣ RKC in ♣

4♦ terminator puppet

4♥ RKC in ♦

4♠ RKC in ♥

4NT RKC in ♠

 

So, after 3♦, you can just keep most of these "kickback" RKCs and use something like

3♥ QP ask

3♠ RKC in ♠

3N To play

4♣ RKC in ♣

4♦ terminator puppet

4♥ RKC in ♦

4♠ RKC in ♥

 

It is when your shape relay ends at 3♠ or higher that this method sucks.

e.g.

3♠-5♣(RKC of ♠)-5♥-?

Now often you cannot check trump Q cheaply.

 

Meckwell plays 4♥/4♠/4N as RKC in low/middle/high when 3 suits are in focus.The problem still exists but at least you are no higher than standard bidders.

 

Though more frequently suit-length based RKCs are lower, you might have a big problem when p is 5431 and you want to play in p's 3 card minor. Kickbacks are smoother.

[nige1]

After pattern resolution (using ~symmetric relays), we play:

3N: To play

4♦: Canonical terminator puppet

S1: QP ask

S2: Always RKC in ♣

S3: Always RKC in ♦

S4: Always RKC in ♥

S5: Always RKC in ♠

For example, after 3♦, showing say a 5=4=3=1 pattern, 3♠ will always be RKC in ♣.

To me, it seems that this treatment is suboptimal, if not downright silly.

IMO, it's much better to play Richard's Moscito treatment, i.e. RKC based on suit length, with ties broken in suit order. In other words, in the above case, 3♠ is RKC ♠, 4♣ is RKC ♥ and so forth. Comments?

To increase your chance of subsiding in 4M/5m, you should consider steps:

1. ♥
2. ♠
3. ♣
4. ♦

[Free]

After 3♥, it sounds very good to use

3♠ QP ask

3N To play

4♣ RKC in ♣

4♦ terminator puppet

4♥ RKC in ♦

4♠ RKC in ♥

4NT RKC in ♠

I disagree that this sounds good in a relay sequence. You commit to 5-level in each strain, while you want to play as low as possible when slam isn't possible (4M or 5m). True that you're no worse off then natural systems, but why settle for something 'acceptable' when you can have something much better?

 

Moreover, when space allows it, you can even add an extra step in the RKC responses to differentiate between min and max. With Richard we did this when RKC was below 3NT (step 1 = min, rest is max with normal responses).

[yunling]

I disagree that this sounds good in a relay sequence. You commit to 5-level in each strain, while you want to play as low as possible when slam isn't possible (4M or 5m). True that you're no worse off then natural systems, but why settle for something 'acceptable' when you can have something much better?

 

Moreover, when space allows it, you can even add an extra step in the RKC responses to differentiate between min and max. With Richard we did this when RKC was below 3NT (step 1 = min, rest is max with normal responses).

 

But then you will have to use 4♠ for ♣ and 4NT for ♦ which I really don't like. Playing in 5M missing 2A is bad, but lacking 2A and being forced to play 6m is horrible.

[Free]

But then you will have to use 4♠ for ♣ and 4NT for ♦ which I really don't like. Playing in 5M missing 2A is bad, but lacking 2A and being forced to play 6m is horrible.

Why on earth would you RKC opposite a limited opener in one of his short suits without an Ace (or with only 1 Ace)? :blink:

[yunling]

Why on earth would you RKC opposite a limited opener in one of his short suits without an Ace (or with only 1 Ace)? :blink:

 

e.g. After p bid 3♥ showing 5-4-1-3, don't you want to ask for ♣ keycards with KX KQX AXX AXXXX? But what if p bids 5♦…

[Free]

e.g. After p bid 3♥ showing 5-4-1-3, don't you want to ask for ♣ keycards with KX KQX AXX AXXXX? But what if p bids 5♦…

No, with such hand RKC is foolish. I ask for AKQ-points and let partner show his entire hand...

[yunling]

No, with such hand RKC is foolish. I ask for AKQ-points and let partner show his entire hand...

 

Suspect whether p can show his ♣ holding below 5♣, say,

distinguish

AQJXX JXXX K KXX

from

AQJXX JXXX X KQX

 

Edited——Sorry that I got the minors reversed.

[Free]

Suspect whether p can show his ♦ holding below 5♣, say,

distinguish

AQJXX JXXX KXX K

from

AQJXX JXXX KQX X

First of all, your partner showed a 5=4=1=3, not a 5=4=3=1.

Second, singleton K doesn't count for a QP ask, so we can't find out about a stiff King. Usually that's ok, but from time to time it's annoying.

Third, if we swap the minors and try to determine ♣ honors, there's a difference in QP's which makes it very easy to distinguish using denial cuebids.

 

Suppose we hold Kx KQx Axx Axxxx, the 5413 was shown with 3♦, we ask QP with 3♥ and base level is 6:

AQJxx-Jxxx-K-Kxx

...-3♥

3♠-4♠ (6 QP's ; 4 QP's missing in useful suits is too much, I believe 4♠ is the best contract since 3NT is out of the question and 5♣ needs a trick more)

 

AQJxx-Jxxx-x-KQx

...-3♥

3NT-4♣ (7 QP's ; relay, 3 QP's missing in useful suits is worth investigating, partner may miss ♣KQ though)

4♥-6♣ (1/2 top honors ♠, 0/3 top honors ♥ ; we know about AQxxx-xxxx-x-KQx with maybe some Jacks on the side)

 

We don't even need a full round of denial cuebidding and we know waaaaaaaaay more at 4♥ than you'd know after some silly RKC response. 4♣ RKC gets a 4NT response and you know only that partner has 2 keycards with ♣Q, you don't even know which keycard you're missing.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that you've never played QP ask with denial cuebids, otherwise you wouldn't suggest to RKC with a balanced hand.

[benlessard]

No, with such hand RKC is foolish. I ask for AKQ-points

 

If ive understood correctly its

 

Kx KQx Axx Axxxx vs a 5413.

 

Here for slam to be decent you need 2 out of 3 keycard and the Q of trumps. 3 keycard with Q of trump will give you good play for 7. So how is it possible that a bid that ask for keycard is worse than a bid that ask for more general strenght ? Your point just doesnt make any sense. Fixing the trumps suit higher waste space vs making the cheapest bid, but you will need to setup trumps or make a guess anyway.

[Zelandakh]

My belief is that the calls below 3NT should be used to improve game bidding, filling some of the gaps of relaying that are easily handled by natural systems. I also switch the 4♦ terminator for direct sign-offs, which avoids any annoying lead-directing doubles. So, if the last step was 3♦:

 

3♥ = relay

3♠ = stopper ask in partner's fragment

3NT = to play

4♣ = puppet to 4♦ (then 4♥/4♠/4NT = RKCB for diamonds/hearts/spades)

4♦ = RKCB for clubs

4M/4NT/5m = natural

 

Fragment suits are arranged with priority 3 card suits before 2 card suits, ♠ > ♥ > ♦ > ♣ for equal length. The argument for having RKCB asks in the order ♥ > ♠ > ♣ > ♦ looks convincing if you only consider stopping in game but looks dubious when you consider bidding space below slam. If you often use RKCB as a slam try then sure but I think most relayers expect to finish in slam more often than not when they make this relay break so the ♣ - ♦ - ♥ - ♠ order is not such a bad idea after all.

[Free]

If ive understood correctly its

 

Kx KQx Axx Axxxx vs a 5413.

 

Here for slam to be decent you need 2 out of 3 keycard and the Q of trumps. 3 keycard with Q of trump will give you good play for 7. So how is it possible that a bid that ask for keycard is worse than a bid that ask for more general strenght ? Your point just doesnt make any sense. Fixing the trumps suit higher waste space vs making the cheapest bid, but you will need to setup trumps or make a guess anyway.

Read my post right above yours... :rolleyes:

 

With relay systems QP ask with denial cuebids is like 1000 times better than RKC. You indeed get general strength of the hand first, but you also get a better location of honors very quickly. Moreover, it's very easy to set trumps: bid anything other than step 1.

 

You claim that slam will be decent if you have 2 keycards with trump Q, but that's not true at all. When you're missing the ♣K as a keycard, you can easily have 2 trump losers. Do you really want to be in slam oposite AQxxx-Axxx-x-Qxx? RKC won't show you that you're missing ♣K, while denial cuebids will.

 

In my experience QP is much more accurate, while RKC is only better when you know slam is on and when you're looking for a few specific cards (keycards just to check you're not missing 1 or 2 + top honors in at most 1 side suit).

 

Really, based on the arguments against QP ask and the examples given, it seems like I'm having a discussion with people who don't have a clue what QP ask is about. Please be informed properly before entering a discussion, and reading all of my posts can also be helpful.

[yunling]

First of all, your partner showed a 5=4=1=3, not a 5=4=3=1.

Second, singleton K doesn't count for a QP ask, so we can't find out about a stiff King. Usually that's ok, but from time to time it's annoying.

 

I count singleton K as 1QP(which is another question, though)so I have to worry whether p holds DQ or CK

For me both hands would go

3♥

3NT-4♣(7QPs)

4♦-4♥(0/2 honors in ♠)

4♠-???(0/2 honors in ♥) :(

[benlessard]

Every system work well when the correct answer is the cheapest.

 

AQxxx,Axxx,x,Qxx or

Axxxx,Axxx,x,Kxx become

 

ending at 3H (like it was in the original question)

 

3S-4K(8)

4H-5K or 5H (depending if its)

 

so your in 5D/5K and because trumps isnt set your options are almost over.

 

If you want we can compare 30-50 slammish hands of your choosing anytime. My previson is that on 5422 DCB will work better but in all other case RKC will work better. This is because the more distribution you have the more likely the RKC in the 2 long suit will dominate DCB.

[Free]

For example, after 3♦, showing say a 5=4=3=1 pattern

ending at 3H (like it was in the original question)

Do I need to say more? :rolleyes:

[benlessard]

e.g. After p bid 3♥ showing 5-4-1-3, don't you want to ask for ♣ keycards with KX KQX AXX AXXXX? But what if p bids 5♦…

 

No, with such hand RKC is foolish. I ask for AKQ-points and let partner show his entire hand...

 

Yes you do :) and especially when you assume that we don't read your post.

 

Anyway its not really important, what is important is finding out why and when RKC and scan is better than QP & DCB and vice-versa.

 

A couple of years ago I did a couple of hands on both DCB and RKC and it was clear to me that RKC and scanning was superior. Maybe the sample was too small or some other important DCB gadget that i didnt know were invented. I know some now play DCB with parity, this is something that I know little about and didnt test. Anyway I see no reason why we dont compared these methods once for all. We just need to bid 50 random slammish hands to see wich "scanning" method is best and most importantly why. This will trump any discussion that we have here.

 

This is a hand that was posted on BW not so long ago.

 

AQJxx

A

xxx

Axxx

 

Kxxxx

Qxxxx

AKQ

void

 

1S-1Nt

2D-2Nt (H,art GF)

3C-3D (low short,ask)

4C-4S (5530) (RKC S) 4D would be PES

5K-6C (2noQ) (bypassed the K of H and ask for K of D)

6NT-7S (Kd,QH,QD no J of S)

 

Here there is 2 way to ask for the K of D, ask for K of H or bypassing K of H, we dont have any special rules here but it can be improved. Also 5NT is always PAS sure we can but some rules where 5NT is asking instead but we keep it simple. Both M & S+C are the worse hands to relay because the GF start at 2NT.

 

This is a very easy hand for QP because you can keycard at +1 with no cost here. I undestand that many will make a Jacoby 2nt instead or relaying also.

[hrothgar]

 

A couple of years ago I did a couple of hands on both DCB and RKC and it was clear to me that RKC and scanning was superior. Maybe the sample was too small or some other important DCB gadget that i didnt know were invented. I know some now play DCB with parity, this is something that I know little about and didnt test. Anyway I see no reason why we dont compared these methods once for all. We just need to bid 50 random slammish hands to see wich "scanning" method is best and most importantly why. This will trump any discussion that we have here.

 

 

Your sample size was two? Am I safe in assuming that this is some kind of pathetic attempt at humor?

Even 50 is pretty small. (I suspect that you'd want to simulate hundreds of hands opposite any "known" strong club opener.

 

FWIW, I've always thought that developing some kind of test bed for auction termination mechanisms would have some real value.

This is a topic that seems amenable to brute force methods...

[benlessard]

Iv used "couple" (its an french-canadian expression that I mistranslated) but it should be "some". As for sample size it depend on how quickly it diverged. I guess if you do 50 hands and its like 30-20 in favor of your method and you have a pretty good idea why its like that than your side probably dont need to do more than knowing that your method is at the very worse slighty inferior and that you dont need to change it. Anyway I dont think its too tough to check more hands if necessary.

 

We should start by checking with limited hands first because this is what most relayer play. I can adjust my range to match Moscito with no difficulty.

 

For me I know my gains will be mostly 64?? pattern or pattern ending at 3H, where the keycard at 3S in the primary suit will be a lot better than the one at 4C. Ill also do well on the single suiters. Ill do worse on the 4M+5m hands or when we bid 4NT quant and we have a lot of jacks and not enough QP.

 

A hand ive found http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/59593-qp-vs-controls-in-relay-systems/

 

Zel continuation is really mysterious but if you play RKC scan this hand is really easy.

 

QTx

AQJx

Jxx

AQx

 

---

Kxx

AKQxx

KTxxx

 

ill even be in 7H here.

 

3H showed 0355---3S (C kc)

4D (2noq) --- 4H (K of D ?)

5D (Kd+KH+QD,no QH)---5H (J of club ?)

5S (no)--

 

Here I would bid 7H.

 

5-1 or 6-0 H is 16% while Jxxx-x or Jxxxx-void & void-Jxxxx is 15%.

 

But without the T of clubs 7H is 10% better than 7D (unless black suit squeeze or first round ruff)

[akhare]

Your sample size was two? Am I safe in assuming that this is some kind of pathetic attempt at humor?

Even 50 is pretty small. (I suspect that you'd want to simulate hundreds of hands opposite any "known" strong club opener.

 

FWIW, I've always thought that developing some kind of test bed for auction termination mechanisms would have some real value.

This is a topic that seems amenable to brute force methods...

 

Richard, good to see you posting around these parts again.

 

What do you have so say about the original question about whether the RKC ask should be based on the relative lengths of suits (instead of assigning fixed slots for specific suits)?

 

My conjecture is that the relay captain is likely to want to ask about the first (or second longest suit), but I don't have any data to back it up. One option might be deal hands with say a combined total of say 18 - 21 QPs (the slave hand has a one or two suited distribution). We can then compute the QPs in the two longest suits and the DD tricks and examine the hands that do make slam.

 

Comments or suggestions?

[Free]

Ben,

 

what do you mean with "RKC with scan"? How do you continue after your RKC response?

 

After RKC I've always played Suit Asking Bids, which basically asks for top honors in a specific suit (the suit is determined from long to short, again with the order H-S-C-D when they're equal). As a result of this, RKC wastes tons of space, but gives us the opportunity to ask very specific questions. Combined with the general approach QP ask offers, it's a very good package.

 

Some important remarks about QP ask:

- when you have an inefficient relay structure (= shows hand pattern quite high) then QP ask is less efficient. Losing 1 step in the relays can result in the loss of 2 steps for slam auctions. When 3♦ shows pattern, then 3♥=QP ask ; 3♠=RKC 1 ; 4♣=RKC 2 ; 4♥=RKC 3. When you change that to 3♥, then 3♠=QP ask (1 step higher) ; 4♣=RKC 1 (2 steps lost) ; 4♥ = RKC 2 (2 steps lost) ; 4♠=RKC 3 (1 step lost).

- when you're scanning a balanced hand you can't always get an accurate picture of the hand quickly because you're scanning 4 suits. Scanning 3 suits is usually no problem.

- when you need lots of QP's from partner, sometimes it's better to signoff and hope partner can zoom. When 3♠ is QP ask with base level 6, then 3NT shows 6, 4♣ shows 7, etc. However, when you need 9 or more and have no fit, you can bid 3NT after which partner will zoom to 4♣ showing 9 (gain 2 steps), 4♦ showing 10, etc.

 

In my experience QP ask with denial cuebids is extremely efficient, that's why most relay systems put it on step 1, immediately after showing exact distribution. The alternative Control ask with denial cuebids is also very good. Sometimes it's even better, sometimes it's a bit worse, depends a lot on the hands and the amount of Queens.

 

RKC obviously becomes less efficient since we have to start higher. But even if you could start quite low, you waste tons of space to show 1 thing at a time (possibly an entire level for keycards, possibly an entire level for suit 1,...). Hence my opinion that RKC is only useful when you need to check keycards and the top honors in 1 side suit.

 

Whatever method you want to use though, you need to prepare and calculate if you're going to have enough bidding space to ask everything you need to know.