RKCB: first answer 5[Cl]/5[Di] and next step.

[Stephen Tu]

We're trying to tell you that ambiguity is bad. Partner always wants to know about trump Q (or it's equivalent with 10 cd fit). He doesn't always care about the suit that just happens to be the step above partner's RKC answer.

 

You haven't yet provided any sort of logic that shows that introducing ambiguity here is useful and enables you to transmit extra information in less space than normal method, to be able to show things that normal methods cannot find out at the useful level.

 

The normal method asks unambiguous questions and receives unambiguous answers that don't require extra space to resolve the ambiguity. Leaving room for subsequent unambiguous questions, rather than needing that space to resolve the ambiguity you have introduced.

 

Your method does not seem to be solving anything, and is introducing extra problems.

 

[Lovera]

We're trying to tell you that ambiguity is bad. Partner always wants to know about trump Q (or it's equivalent with 10 cd fit). He doesn't always care about the suit that just happens to be the step above partner's RKC answer.

 

You haven't yet provided any sort of logic that shows that introducing ambiguity here is useful and enables you to transmit extra information in less space than normal method, to be able to show things that normal methods cannot find out at the useful level.

 

The normal method asks unambiguous questions and receives unambiguous answers that don't require extra space to resolve the ambiguity. Leaving room for subsequent unambiguous questions, rather than needing that space to resolve the ambiguity you have introduced.

 

Your method does not seem to be solving anything, and is introducing extra problems.

 

 

On this I think we can meet. That's why I wanted to know the second version of the RKCB with a two-step questioning of the Queen to check how it proceeded. Wanting to interrogate, in my variant, even in the suit of the trump Queen request already at the fifth level, this involves both an anticipation of the information as the addition of this information to the Queen's report and this constitutes the initial ambiguity that can also be immediately resolved. The completeness in the investigation is given by the re-interrogation that moves according to the previous answer and that gives rise, therefore, to two sets of answers: 1) the previous answer has signaled a Queen (in the next step) with answer in a suit, 2 ) the previous answer indicated a King with NT response. This re-interrogation therefore requires that the ambiguity has been overcome, that we can proceed towards the grand slam (at least initially) considering that some possible positive answer exceeds the level of six of the agreed trump, that the presence of the Queen is assured for a fit of at least nine cards and the 6NT level is also guaranteed.

[pescetom]

On this I think we can meet.

I think that's Lovera-speak for "va bene, ho sbagliato" ;)

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, if you want a version of RKCB trying to use these calls more intensively, can I direct you to Ken Rexford's VKCB method, which to me seems to be more useful and better thought out than your proposal. I am sure he would appreciate you taking the time to buy his book providing additional details should it awake your interest! ;)

[pescetom]

It looks interesting but I'm not rushing out to buy the book yet B-)

The cheapest reply shows 2 keycards out of... 6 ? and the other replies are ?

[Lovera]

Lovera, if you want a version of RKCB trying to use these calls more intensively, can I direct you to Ken Rexford's VKCB method, which to me seems to be more useful and better thought out than your proposal. I am sure he would appreciate you taking the time to buy his book providing additional details should it awake your interest! ;)

Thanks, but this book was already propose to me by Ken Rexford (at the time of the other my post "Most it had been told..").

[Lovera]

Lovera, if you want a version of RKCB trying to use these calls more intensively, can I direct you to Ken Rexford's VKCB method, which to me seems to be more useful and better thought out than your proposal. I am sure he would appreciate you taking the time to buy his book providing additional details should it awake your interest! ;)

 

En passant the book of K. Rexford, as expalained in the topic indicate, goes in other direction. Instead this mine seem must interesting exploring a new way for bidding and covering different situations as anyone can have noticed.

[Zelandakh]

En passant the book of K. Rexford, as expalained in the topic indicate, goes in other direction. Instead this mine seem must interesting exploring a new way for bidding and covering different situations as anyone can have noticed.

It sounds like you should perhaps collate your ideas and publish your own book. Maybe you will create a bestseller!

[Lovera]

It sounds like you should perhaps collate your ideas and publish your own book. Maybe you will create a bestseller!

 

I have not diminished anything and I do not believe that what you said is helpful to anyone.

[Zelandakh]

I have not diminished anything and I do not believe that what you said is helpful to anyone.

I think you should perhaps check your translation software as your comment does not appear to relate to mine. If your intention is rather to push the remaining few people who post at all in your threads to silence then your comment is absolutely on point.

[Lovera]

I think you should perhaps check your translation software as your comment does not appear to relate to mine. If your intention is rather to push the remaining few people who post at all in your threads to silence then your comment is absolutely on point.

 

I'm not silencing anyone like, even, I never thought of writing a book. But I find that this speech has many variations to consider that must be included, in some way, in the answers (to be presented/explained possibly in a different way than usual) and this is a possible complication not to be underestimated.

[Lovera]

At this point, I believe it needs some premise: as already mentioned, the possibilities of response increase covering different situations (from which the reference to the depth of the convention). Being external to the RKB, this variant of mine, as you shall see, acts slightly differently. In the meantime, the combination of the re-interrogation with the other types of requests expands the effects, also becoming very specific (according to possible couple agreements). One of these "differences" is found in the indication of the lateral controls (and this is not foreseen in the classical RKB): in example if the interrogation asks for the presence of the King in the suit of the re-interrogation having also another King this is indicated as answer so as to have the simultaneous indication of two Kings (the one in the suit interrogated beyond that in the suit indicated as answer). This mode also applies to Aces. This variant, as will be explained later, considers the distribution points (i.e. the singletons) to be a useful indication.

[Lovera]

I now explain the re-interrogation, also giving the possible answers: when a suit bidding is made in answer, this means that in the suit of the request there is a Queen and in the response suit an Ace (i.e. 4NT ♠ -5 ♣ (3 keys), 5 ♦ (?) - 5 ♥ (Q ♦ + A ♥). The query asks for informations on the honors for the two suits bidded, with this series of answers: if does not have the King of ♦, trump agree (negative), if he has the King, NT at level, if, he has the King in the suit of the re-interrogation and, moreover, in the suit where an Ace has been indicated there is the Ace bare or AK bares, repeat that suit again (i.e. 6 ♥).

[Stephen Tu]

Um, so are you saying 4nt keycard for spades, 5c-5d-5h shows Q of diamonds + ace of hearts?

 

• Why would you waste any spaces confirming ace of hearts? Ace of hearts is a keycard, already shown by the 5c response. Any bids allocated to showing aces are wasted space.
• Now your responses don't seem to say anything about the Q of spades. Your method seems to randomly place importance on the DK/DQ here because diamonds randomly happens to be the suit above the answer step. But if response was 5d, 5h asks about hearts not diamonds. Why should asker always want to know about diamond honors opposite 0 or 3 but heart honors opposite 1 or 4? Whereas the trump Q (or the equivalent in 10 cd fit extra length) is *always* important. King/Q of the random suit above the first answer is often irrelevant.
• You still have not demonstrated any pair of hands where your method transmits more information in less space than the more usual methods.

[Lovera]

Um, so are you saying 4nt keycard for spades, 5c-5d-5h shows Q of diamonds + ace of hearts?

 

• Why would you waste any spaces confirming ace of hearts? Ace of hearts is a keycard, already shown by the 5c response. Any bids allocated to showing aces are wasted space.
• Now your responses don't seem to say anything about the Q of spades. Your method seems to randomly place importance on the DK/DQ here because diamonds randomly happens to be the suit above the answer step. But if response was 5d, 5h asks about hearts not diamonds. Why should asker always want to know about diamond honors opposite 0 or 3 but heart honors opposite 1 or 4? Whereas the trump Q (or the equivalent in 10 cd fit extra length) is *always* important. King/Q of the random suit above the first answer is often irrelevant.
• You still have not demonstrated any pair of hands where your method transmits more information in less space than the more usual methods.

 

Because I'm assuming that the RKB bidder is interested in ♦, that this variant is being applied when the answer shows 3 keycards (excluding the answers 2 w / wo), to show what happens and what should be declared as answer. In this example, as I said earlier, ambiguity is solved (= not interested to know of the Queen of ♠) when the (first) re-interrogation begins. The Queen of ♦ to be revealed must be associated with "an" Ace who in this case is ♥. In the event that you are not interested in ♦ ma, i.e. to ♥ the query occurs by directly asking for that suit and, therefore, we do not enter the variant by declaring how it is usually known. But this way of doing unites two information systems, it is full of additional information, it can be combined in various ways by implementing each other and, moreover, it provides a series of new and further information on key distribution points and sequences of honors that can be a source of tricks.

[Stephen Tu]

Your entire premise seems absurd.

If diamond holding was critical to bidding *small slam*, this should have been resolved by auction below 4S, by cue bidding. If you are waiting to 5 level to do it, it's too late! How can RKB bidder know in advance that partner will conveniently answer 5c leaving room for a 5d ask about the diamond suit? Any other answer you are screwed since your method is using the Q ask as *that specific suit* ask, not diamonds specifically.

 

RKB is asking about aces and *trump honors*, because trump honors are hard to show in most methods, because people often don't have cue methods revolving around showing honors in trumps, since return to suit is usually regressive and slam discouraging, and because of RKB popularity. Trump Q loser often cannot be avoided or requires good guessing. 2nd/3rd round of diamonds can be ruffed or discarded on a side suit, they are not important anywhere close to the trump Q in terms of frequency.

 

Plus you are wanting to show heart ace with 5H, which was already shown by 5c response. Why? Why not have 5H show something else that's useful that hasn't been shown yet instead?

Again it makes no sense to prioritize 3rd round diamond controls over the trump Q. The trump Q is a possible loser about half the time. The DQ is relevant far less often than this.

Now if you need a particular diamond honor for *grand* slam, the normal mechanisms cover this. Again if you need *both* DK and DQ for grand, IMO some of this should have been uncovered in the auction prior to launching into RKB, or perhaps the RKB asker should have maneuvered to answer RKB instead of asking.

[johnu]

Your entire premise seems absurd.

 

...

You could have stopped here.

[smerriman]

You could have stopped here.

Or somewhere on page 1, possibly.

 

But then again, this.

[Lovera]

Your entire premise seems absurd.

If diamond holding was critical to bidding *small slam*, this should have been resolved by auction below 4S, by cue bidding. If you are waiting to 5 level to do it, it's too late! How can RKB bidder know in advance that partner will conveniently answer 5c leaving room for a 5d ask about the diamond suit? Any other answer you are screwed since your method is using the Q ask as *that specific suit* ask, not diamonds specifically.

 

RKB is asking about aces and *trump honors*, because trump honors are hard to show in most methods, because people often don't have cue methods revolving around showing honors in trumps, since return to suit is usually regressive and slam discouraging, and because of RKB popularity. Trump Q loser often cannot be avoided or requires good guessing. 2nd/3rd round of diamonds can be ruffed or discarded on a side suit, they are not important anywhere close to the trump Q in terms of frequency.

 

Plus you are wanting to show heart ace with 5H, which was already shown by 5c response. Why? Why not have 5H show something else that's useful that hasn't been shown yet instead?

Again it makes no sense to prioritize 3rd round diamond controls over the trump Q. The trump Q is a possible loser about half the time. The DQ is relevant far less often than this.

Now if you need a particular diamond honor for *grand* slam, the normal mechanisms cover this. Again if you need *both* DK and DQ for grand, IMO some of this should have been uncovered in the auction prior to launching into RKB, or perhaps the RKB asker should have maneuvered to answer RKB instead of asking.

 

Since he is returning to this point again, I try to clarify what I said. Suppose you are the RKB bidder having 2 Aces and the Queen of ♠ and that by the bidding seems to have a good hand from the partner. When you start with 4NT you certainly don't know the answer but the partner reports 3 keys. Now, going on, let's leave temporarily for part 5 ♦ and see instead 5 ♥ which is SpecificSuitAsking (= SSA) asking if in that suit there is the King with NT as answer or the Queen with suit answer. The same is true for 6 ♣ and also for 6 ♦ and this last bidding at this level since the previous one was reserved for the reporting of the Queen of trump cards. But what if you need more information in ♦ with probable other statement ? Now I'm trying to bring this to the lower level togheter with the Queen's trump report. Thus in the cheapest or next step in that suit a double indication is created both when indicating the King of Hearts for the Queen of trump and when indicating the Ace for the Queen of Diamonds. So, returning to the beginning, if you have the Queen of ♠ you already know that the answer will be yes in suit but negative and a different indication would not be clear. Instead, in this choice of mine, it becomes possible to have this indication encoded together with something else. Therefore, returning to the subject, resorting to a second information system allows the integration of the RKB by extending the effects (without changing it) by taking advantage of, or even different indications not covered as the top distribution points that allow to riff tricks in addition to the indication different of the side controls valid both for the Kings and for the Axes that (with a proviso) for the Queens effected with shift.

[Stephen Tu]

Your system *simply doesn't work*.

Yes, if I have 2 aces + trump Q, it would be potentially nice after 4nt-5c, to utilize 5d as something other than the useless Q ask. Normal RKB bidders will never utilize this bid when holding the trump Q and thus potential space is being wasted. But there is no way, absent cheating, to tell partner "hey I already have the trump Q, I want to replace the trump Q ask with a lower specific suit asking bid with more steps so I can get more info". You have to design your system to work both when you don't have the Q and care about it and when you already have it. Partner doesn't get to peek into your hand to see what you are missing and only answer the question you actually want to know. If you design your system such that he gives a positive with *either* DQ or trump Q, you severely hurt yourself in much more common situations when you don't have the trump Q and really need to know for small slam or grand, and don't give a rat's ass about the diamond queen.

 

Normal mechanisms can locate DK (by bidding 5nt, partner will bid 6d if has it, or 6c then you can bid 6d to ask for DK, or he will bypass not holding it), or DQ (by bid 6d directly). There is a problem only in that it is difficult to ask for *both* DK and DQ and stay at 6S or below not holding both. But usually that can be discovered earlier in auction, before 4nt. Maybe responder 2/1 in diamonds, then raise spades, cue bidding by partner should show one of the diamond honors. Specific suit ask can then discover the other. But really that suggests that the RKB asker has some potential source of tricks in diamonds and suit like DAJTxx. Many of those hands should rather bid diamonds then support spades, and cue and try to induce partner with the hoped for DKQ(x?) to do the RKB asking rather than the answering. And if that doesn't work, merely bidding 5nt to guarantee all keys and trump Q should be enough; if you showed a real diamond suit earlier in the auction holding undisclosed DKQ should usually induce partner to bid the grand. So really this sort of problem where you need to locate both DK+DQ really ought to be exceedingly rare if you planned out the auction.

 

Here there is a somewhat idle bid after 5c specifically (5h), which is somewhat duplicative of 6H if just used as a specific suit ask, perhaps that can be used as some sort of special puppet looking for both K+Q of a suit. E.g. 5h forces 5s->suit (looking for both K and Q of that suit).

But your idea as presented is lunacy.

[Lovera]

I now proceed to give some other indications about the bidding, adding that any suggestions are taken into consideration also as far as compatible with what I have proposed. This is how the Ace Bare is indicated in ♦: the bidding that goes 4NT-5 ♣ (= 3keys), 5 ♦ (=?)- 5 ♠ (= trump agree, negative), 5NT-6 ♦ indicates the Ace Bare in ♦ by making a positive bid after a negative one in the same suit (as also signaling a suit aside).

[Lovera]

I now give the second set of answers for re-interrogation , when a King was reported in the suit of the query with NT as an answer. Since the suits are all controlled, this re-interrogation is used to search in the hand a distributional point with top honors (= A bare or AK bares). The answers then are: 1) missing in the hand this situation, trump agree, 2) if you have this one in the suit of the query(=AK), bid a suit aside; 3) if this situation exists in the hand but must be given a positive answer that brings the bidding to the upper level, NT level; 4) if in the suit of the interrogation togheter the King there is also a Queen, is bidded the suit where there is A or AK bares.

[Lovera]

I restart treating this topic again, after a pause dedicated to verifying various bidding situations. As you can see, when you have the combination of KQ cards you have a double possibility. In fact, usually the Q is signaled when you have a second suit (where the Ace is) to bid up but, instead, the King is bidded if you have the same situation in a second suit under the "query". A second observation is made regarding the repetition of a suit that signals a second quality of play (i.e. an Ace singleton or AK doubleton).

[Lovera]

As for the open bidding conditions of the weaker hand towards the one with 3 keys that I initially did not indicate, they would be: condition of opening with a keycard(=A/K) in the agreed trump and an external Ace with points at the top of the first range(=15/16) when you own the Queen trump while scoring in the second range(=16/17+) when missing. The situation of ambiguity (previously treated) should be easily resolved in this case. If you do not have the Queen you will have to proceed via 5NT which asks the partner for information on this matter (not having it declares the agreed, negative trump). In this way, knowing of the presence of the Queen, can you proceed eventually to the grand slam (where it is necessary to have all 6 keycards), trying to find, as much as possibile , a fit of 9 cards or more.

[Lovera]

Therefore, when the answer to the first "query" was an answer in a suit at level, the positive answers after 5NT are: 1) the bidding of a minor suit indicates a second King beyond that one already indicated (by the Queen of the trump agree); 2) the repetition of the suit indicated in the previous answer indicates a top distributional point (= AK bare).