KCB or RKCB

[Liversidge]

I thought RKC was 1430 while KC was 0314. Obviously this makes almost zero difference. Play 0314 if you find it easier or play 1430 if you believe is is more common to have 14 than to have 03.

 

Anyway: 04-15-2-3 is one of those nonstandard conventions which absolutely should not be taught. I suppose the motivation is that you sometimes can't distinguish 0 from 3. But if asker has only two KCs himself then he should assume that 03 means 3, since otherwise we would have been at the 5-level with only two keycards, and in that case asking for keycards was misguided in the first place.

 

So just play 0314 or 1430, and interpret the answer as 3 or 4 if impossible, and as 0 or 1 if 3/4 would be impossible.

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

[johnu]

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

 

 

If you look at the end of the article where the updated version is described, the steps are

 

5♣ 0 or 3 keycards

 

5♦ 1 or 4 keycards (some people reverse the 5♣ and 5♦ responses)

 

5♥ 2 keycards without trump queen

 

5♠ 2 keycards with trump queen

 

The responses you have quoted are apparently from an original version of the convention. I have never played against anybody who used the original version and can only recall people playing the updated version which I have listed. The glaring weakness of the original version is that you can never ask for the trump queen after a 2 or 3 keycard response.

[fromageGB]

...Anyway: 04-15-2-3 is one of those nonstandard conventions which absolutely should not be taught.

I can't agree with this. Having a bid with two meanings is to be avoided is possible, but if not, they need to be identifiable in practice. Playing RKCB with a difference of 3, I have had hands that cannot distinguish between 0 and 3, or 1 or 4, because partner could logically have either. Playing a difference of 4 makes it much clearer - there is a significant difference between them.

 

It is not right to say that you should not be asking if the 3-difference can cause you to go wrong.

[Liversidge]

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.

[Vampyr]

RKCB with the peculiar 031422 steps but without any reference whatsoever to the trump queen

 

What is the 22 in this version?

[smerriman]

I can't agree with this. Having a bid with two meanings is to be avoided is possible, but if not, they need to be identifiable in practice. Playing RKCB with a difference of 3, I have had hands that cannot distinguish between 0 and 3, or 1 or 4, because partner could logically have either. Playing a difference of 4 makes it much clearer - there is a significant difference between them.

 

It is not right to say that you should not be asking if the 3-difference can cause you to go wrong.

Isn't it standard that if you are in any doubt as to the response, you sign off - and partner raises to slam with 3 or 4 keycards? So it seems very unlikely you'd ever run into any difficulties.

[helene_t]

Isn't it standard that if you are in any doubt as to the response, you sign off - and partner raises to slam with 3 or 4 keycards? So it seems very unlikely you'd ever run into any difficulties.

With 4 keycards you obviously raise but with 3 I would not recommend it. First of all there could be situations where partner asks for keycard having zero themselves. Second, if a minor suit is trumps, asker could pass the response because they assume that it shows 0/1. It obviously depends on context - if you have opened a weak 1NT holding three keycards you obviously accept any slam invite and raise if partner signs off after your keycard response.

[smerriman]

That doesn't make sense to me - if 3 keycards aren't enough for slam, what were they going to do if you showed 2?

[gordontd]

That doesn't make sense to me - if 3 keycards aren't enough for slam, what were they going to do if you showed 2?

It depends on the context. In some sequences 3 is more than expected, in others it’s fewer.

[Zelandakh]

It depends on the context. In some sequences 3 is more than expected, in others it’s fewer.

This is why I gave the exclusion for 2♣ openers with 0 or 1 keycards. This is a simple and easy rule for improvers. A pair can add other special cases, such as a 2NT opening or JS rebid for example, later as they get more used to the concept.

[fromageGB]

Isn't it standard that if you are in any doubt as to the response, you sign off - and partner raises to slam with 3 or 4 keycards? So it seems very unlikely you'd ever run into any difficulties.

I think you are missing something important here. If partner has 3 or 4 and jumps to 6T (trumps), then you have completely lost the ability to investigate 7. Yet it is precisely when partner is that strong you do want to be able to investigate before deciding on 6 or 7. Why play something so bad in this context, when you could play something that either has no duality / ambiguity at all, or play something where the duality comprises a bigger difference in the two values, that has less likelihood of causing a problem?

[Zelandakh]

I think you are missing something important here. If partner has 3 or 4 and jumps to 6T (trumps), then you have completely lost the ability to investigate 7.

Standard is actually to continue as if the 5M sign off was a trump queen ask but as we are discussing simplified forms for beginners it seems reasonable to use 6M (or alternatively 5NT) to show the positive.

[smerriman]

I think you are missing something important here. If partner has 3 or 4 and jumps to 6T (trumps), then you have completely lost the ability to investigate 7.

I find it hard to imagine a hand where you believe it's possible for you to only hold 1 keycard between the two of you, yet at the same time also believe it's possible you have enough combined strength for a grand slam.

 

But surely the 04/15/2/3 approach is going to cause much more regular problems when you have no space to explore after a 3 keycard response.

[Zelandakh]

I find it hard to imagine a hand where you believe it's possible for you to only hold 1 keycard between the two of you, yet at the same time also believe it's possible you have enough combined strength for a grand slam.

You might find it helpful for your imagination to do a recount.

[smerriman]

Sorry, meant 2, not 1. But same idea applies :)

[fromageGB]

I find it hard to imagine a hand where you believe it's possible for you to only hold 2 keycards between the two of you, yet at the same time also believe it's possible you have enough combined strength for a grand slam. [Adjusted by subsequent comment]

The sort of hand where this happens is usually a distributional one, I think. I can never remember hands, but constructing a simple example that does not involve asking for Kings (which would be easier) :

 

Red against Green, partner opens 1♠ and RHO (a sensible player) overcalls 4♥. He can be expected to have about KQJT in 8 hearts. You too are distributional, with

♠ Kxxx

♥ x

♦ AKQJxx

♣ xx

and it is your bid. You have quite a few tricks. You have 2 of the 5 aces.

 

4NT RKCB is obvious. IF partner has 3 aces, then you can check for the trump Q, then bid 7♠.

If that Q is missing, 6♠ is probably solid.

 

If partner has 2 aces, then 6♠ is an excellent chance.

If partner has just one ace, then 5♠ is a good spot, although you hope his clubs are guarded.

 

You bid 4NT, it is passed to opener who bids 5♣. Your lucky day, so check for the Q (yes), bid 7♠.

 

* * *

That's quite reasonable, isn't it?

 

* * *

Partner has

♠QJTxx

♥Kx

♦xx

♣KQJx

and they take their 3 aces for 3 down.

 

It is that "0 or 3" ambiguity that is the problem. "0 or 4" is much safer.

[fromageGB]

But surely the 04/15/2/3 approach is going to cause much more regular problems when you have no space to explore after a 3 keycard response.

Exploring what? You have all the space above the "3" reply for Kings etc if you are happy with 6 and considering 7. This is the current "simple" method, and I would suggest retaining it, not going to flawed RKCB, but moving later to something better involving an asking bid of perhaps 4T+1 (next step up from trumps) that has no ambiguity.

 

Alternatively, if the trump Q is your immediate consideration, why not treat this as a 6th Ace? There is then no need to "ask for the Q". You can stop in 5T missing 2, bid 6T missing one, or look for 7T by checking side Ks and Qs if you have all 6 aces. It makes bidding easier. Ideally the ace asking bid should be the next step up from 4T, but without that you can still have 4NT as the ask, with "0" signing off in 5T, and otherwise in steps for 1, 2, 3. You use the same modulus 4 duality, so for example with hearts as trumps and 4NT asks :

5♣ = 1 or 5

5♦ = 2 or 6

5♥ = 0 or 4

5♠ = 3.

Because of the 4NT starting point, you would not ask unless 3 were enough for small slam. (Note, with RKCB 2+Q commits to slam.)

If the asking bid was 4♠, with hearts as trumps, then you can cope with any reply.

Much simpler than RKCB and the same basic method as used now.

[johnu]

Isn't it standard that if you are in any doubt as to the response, you sign off - and partner raises to slam with 3 or 4 keycards? So it seems very unlikely you'd ever run into any difficulties.

 

I don't know about standard, but I would rather make a grand slam try than raise directly to 6.

[johnu]

You bid 4NT, it is passed to opener who bids 5♣. Your lucky day, so check for the Q (yes), bid 7♠.

 

* * *

That's quite reasonable, isn't it?

 

* * *

Partner has

♠QJTxx

♥Kx

♦xx

♣KQJx

and they take their 3 aces for 3 down.

 

It is that "0 or 3" ambiguity that is the problem. "0 or 4" is much safer.

 

You bid 5♦ to check for the trump queen and get the 5♥ response that shows the trump queen. Why would you jump to slam when you still don't know if partner has 0 or 3 aces? ;) A 5♠ signoff has nothing to lose since opener should automatically pass with 0 keycards and automatically continue with 3 keycards.

 

Admittedly, this is a best case scenario where you should have no problems. Spades are trump and you have lots of room to make intermediate bids.

[Zelandakh]

Why would you jump to slam when you still don't know if partner has 0 or 3 aces?

This was the whole point of the post. Fromage was responding to the sub-thread suggesting that there is no hand where there can be ambiguity between 0 and 3 key cards.

[johnu]

This was the whole point of the post. Fromage was responding to the sub-thread suggesting that there is no hand where there can be ambiguity between 0 and 3 key cards.

 

And my point was that there was no problem in the example given.

[smerriman]

Much simpler than RKCB and the same basic method as used now.

Doesn't this now make it impossible to proceed when holding a 10 card trump fit when you don't care about the queen? Maybe it works for you, but seems much more complicated than RKCB for me compared to the rare occasion of double ambiguity.

[Vampyr]

OP, you have found sources that demonstrate that "KCB" is in fact known outside your local club, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. If you really want to play it, but eventually switch to RKCB, as long as you use the responses listed in post #22 you will be able to switch without causing too much difficulty for your partner.

 

But is RKCB really that complicated? You don't have to play the full system. In fact, most people ask for kings (usually specific) and the trump queen and nothing else (they may have added responses to show voids).

[Zelandakh]

And my point was that there was no problem in the example given.

If you have the agreement to ignore a sign off with 3 or 4 key cards. This is not a bad idea (I suggested it earlier in this thread) but it is not something that every pair plays.

[Vampyr]

If you have the agreement to ignore a sign off with 3 or 4 key cards. This is not a bad idea (I suggested it earlier in this thread) but it is not something that every pair plays.

 

Are you sure?