KCB or RKCB

[Zelandakh]

Are you sure?

Sure that it is not a bad idea or sure that not every pair plays it this way?

[Vampyr]

Sure that it is not a bad idea or sure that not every pair plays it this way?

 

The latter.

[Zelandakh]

The latter.

I am reasonaby confident that below a certain level the majority do not play it that way.

[Tramticket]

Are you sure? [that players systematically ignore a sign-off with three or four cards after a 4♣/♦ response]

 

We certainly don't have that agreement. We don't sign-off, unless two key cards are missing. We expect to be able to tell whether partner is showing zero/one key card or three/four key cards (and therefore know whether two key cards are missing). If we don't know then we have no business bidding RKCB - other slam investigation techniques are available, such as cue bids.

 

I suppose it might be possible to construct a freak deal (probably in a competitive auction), where a response would be ambiguous. If that ever happens (it never has), I guess that we will have to sign off and hope that partner figures it out. (She will).

[rmnka447]

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.

FYI, Richard Pavlicek is, indeed, a very well respected American Bridge player. He is an ACBL Grand Master and an WBF World International Master. He has won 12 major events (11 Team, 1 Pairs) at North American Bridge Championships (national tournaments) and finished runner-up in such events about an equal number of times. He has over 17,500 master points which puts him in 175th place in the all-time list of North American Masterpoint winners. He has devoted significant time to teaching bridge and writing about it. He coauthored perennial bestseller "Modern Bridge Conventions" with Bill Root.

 

In short, he's one heck of a bridge player and teacher.

[johnu]

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.

 

Let's see. On the sample sequence, you have shown 0 or 3 keycards, partner asked you for the trump queen, you have shown the trump queen, and now partner has signed off in 5♠. Whether you have an agreement or not, you should bid on since the only thing partner can be worried about after using RKC is whether you have 0 or 3 keycards, and you have 3 keycards.

 

If instead partner signed off in 5♠ after your 0 or 3 keycard response, you may not be sure you aren't missing 2 keycards since partner "may" (???) have bid RKC with 0 keycards. Can't you see that this is a different level of problem?

[Zelandakh]

Let's see. On the sample sequence, you have shown 0 or 3 keycards, partner asked you for the trump queen, you have shown the trump queen, and now partner has signed off in 5♠.

Oh, you meant a 5♠ sign-off after 5♥? I had assumed you meant over 5♣, which is the standard way of differentiating between 0 and 3 in such circumstances. After a successful queen ask, it is not certain that 5♠ is a sign-off any more. Many play this as the king ask or even as a special sequence to fond out information that would otherwise be difficult. There have been many BBF threads over the years on continuations after a trump queen denial or sign-offs after a successful trump queen ask. I am fairly sure Justin made the case for 5♠ being forcing in this precise sequence many years back for example.

 

But yes, if your agreement is that 5♠ over 5♥ checks back between 0 and 3 keycards then great. We found out about the ♥K extra over the alternative method. You should not pretend that this is a universal treatment though.

[johnu]

Oh, you meant a 5♠ sign-off after 5♥? I had assumed you meant over 5♣, which is the standard way of differentiating between 0 and 3 in such circumstances. After a successful queen ask, it is not certain that 5♠ is a sign-off any more. Many play this as the king ask or even as a special sequence to fond out information that would otherwise be difficult. There have been many BBF threads over the years on continuations after a trump queen denial or sign-offs after a successful trump queen ask. I am fairly sure Justin made the case for 5♠ being forcing in this precise sequence many years back for example.

 

But yes, if your agreement is that 5♠ over 5♥ checks back between 0 and 3 keycards then great. We found out about the ♥K extra over the alternative method. You should not pretend that this is a universal treatment though.

 

And your suggested method is??? Sure, if you have agreed in advance to play this, but otherwise??? Without any agreements, doubt over 0-3 or 1-4 has to be in the back of the mind. I think it would by crazy to bid 5♠ as a grand slam try (or investigate 6NT?) when partner may play it as signoff.

[fromageGB]

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.

This is much simpler than RKCB. The steps are a logical and simple 1,2,3, and there is no asking for the Q, because you have already included this. What could be simpler? Yes, if you have an undisclosed 10 card fit you can no longer ignore the Q, but this has never been useful to me when playing RKCB, as far as I recall. A partner with a good memory says he has only once done that, and the Q turned up in 3 and lost. If that ability is your most important priority then choose your poison, but I have never needed it, and simplicity with no practical ambiguity is more important for me.

 

The method also has a number of other advantages you do not get with RKCB:

• Assuming you use the space between 5T and 6T to discover all the side Ks and the ability to ask for or show "extras", a 1 or 2 reply also enables you to discover some agreed specifics, such as the Qs of the suits bid apart from trumps, in the space you would have otherwise used for the trump Q.
  
• It can be used without change for void asking (exclusion asking) where you ask with a bid >4T in the suit to be ignored. Say with hearts trumps and a club void, 5♣ asks; partner with the 2 aces you need replies 5♠, and you can still discover both side Kings and extras before deciding on 6 or 7.
  

And also bear in mind that when you do have a 10 card fit, sometimes that is known by partner so you can agree to ignore the Q if you wish, and if unknown, three quarters of the time you will have the Q anyway.

[blackshoe]

My understanding of the development of Roman Keycard Blackwood is that original Blackwood specified responses showing 0 or 4 aces, 1 ace, 2 aces, 3 aces; then the Italians came along with Roman Blackwood, with responses showing 0 or 3 aces, 1 or 4 aces, 2 aces; then somebody (Kantar?) built on that to Roman Keycard Blackwood, responses showing 0 or 3 keycards, 1 or 4 keycards, 2 or 5 keycards* (two steps, the first denying the trump Q, the second showing it), where the keycards are the four aces and the king of trump. IMLE "Keycard Blackwood" is a shortened form of "Roman Keycard Blackwood" (the name), not a separate convention. But I suppose a separate such convention does exist, since somebody found a description of it somewhere. However, I do object to the OP's characterization of this "Keycard Blackwood" convention as "standard".

 

In Kantar's Roman Keycard Blackwood: The Final Word he takes some 85 pages to describe the basic convention, and an additional 230 or so pages (from memory, the numbers might be off a little) to describe exceptions, add-ons, and other nonsense. In all of that he never mentions Kickback, which IMO is a superior approach. I have a book on it around here somewhere. It's about a hundred pages, maybe less. Kickback has its own problems and idiosyncrasies, of course.

 

All in all, I'd suggest starting off with no Blackwood. Learn Italian style cue-bidding instead. B-)

 

* Most people forget about the 5 keycards. After all, would anyone ask holding no keycards himself? But it is part of the original system.

[fromageGB]

in all, I'd suggest starting off with no Blackwood. Learn Italian style cue-bidding instead. B-)

Seriously though, of course you should learn to cue bid, but that applies only if trumps have been agreed. Often as the strong "trump agreer", not in a sequence already GF, you cannot cue bid because trumps are not agreed, and you can't bid 3T because it is not forcing. Other sequences too must agree at 4T, and when this is the case you do need the ability to investigate beyond. IMHO ace asking is more important than cue bidding, and Italian or not, cue bidding is not going to help when you are missing the AKQ of trumps.

[Zelandakh]

Seriously though, of course you should learn to cue bid, but that applies only if trumps have been agreed. Often as the strong "trump agreer", not in a sequence already GF, you cannot cue bid because trumps are not agreed, and you can't bid 3T because it is not forcing.

Having the agreement that 4 of the 4th suit is a forcing raise in partner's last bid suit covers many of these cases. That said, I agree with your main point - an ace-asking convention is usually a simpler slam investigation tool than cue bidding for a complete beginner and generally sufficient until they have at least covered the basics of game and part-score bidding.