[Lovera]

Althoug in RKCB query for Q in spade should be 5♠ with answers : 5NT=Q only in spade, 6♣=Queens in spade and club, 6♦=Q in spade and diamond, 6♥= no Q in spade. In this case we know with 6♦ that are two Queens (in spade and diamond suits).

This post has been edited by Lovera: 2015-June-13, 09:29

[gszes]

 Lovera, on 2015-June-13, 09:27, said:

Althoug in RKCB query for Q in spade should be 5♠ with answers : 5NT=Q only in spade, 6♣=Queens in spade and club, 6♦=Q in spade and diamond, 6♥= no Q in spade. In this case we know with 6♦ that are two Queens (in spade and diamond suits).

if you use 5s as a queen ask how do you sign off in 5s when there are insufficient key cards:)?

[gszes]

 gnasher, on 2012-February-27, 14:42, said:

A reasonable cue-bidding auction is

    -1♦
1♥-4♥
4♠-5♣
5♦-6♣
6♥

West knows that there's a spade loser, so he's not tempted to go on.

If East's spades were Kx instead of Qx, he could bid Keycard over 4♠. This is a good example of the disadvantages of Kickback. The right time to ask for keycards is after you have established how well the hands fit, not before.


It's not that magic to find opener with Kx Kxxx KQxxx Ax plus enough wasted quacks to make an 18-count.

And, just to prove that I read all the way to the bottom:


You're saying that Kxx Kxxx KQJx AK is a better hand than Qx Kxxx KQJxx AK for game purposes? I don't think I agree with that - controls are nice, but I'd rather have the extra diamond winner.

I like cue bidding sequences and they are useful far more often than exclusion blackwood, but when one has the exclusion type hand, it is usually difficult to get to the right contract via cuebidding. The question then becomes which arrow do we keep in our bidding quiver.

[Lovera]

 gszes, on 2015-June-13, 21:33, said:

if you use 5s as a queen ask how do you sign off in 5s when there are insufficient key cards:)?

We need data because looking for a grand possibility in a suit upper trump than suring all keys and authorizing partner to bid 7 if has extra. There is not ambiguity for answering. In this case after 6♦ the 6♥ by RKCB bidder tells that (s)he counts only 12 tricks and partner confirm passing.

[apollo1201]

Just a side digression as some mentionned the support by opener. In order to distinguish balanced and semi-BALANCED 4-level support (NOT sure it would help though): after 1m-1M, 3NT is very balanced (namely 4333, 4432) while 4M is less balanced with no other suitable call (4m for good 6-cd or splinter), so usually 5422. Not had issues since I played it and avoided some lousy slams warned by the 3NT.

[neilkaz]

You avoid getting to 7 by not bidding it! If you bid 4NT to ask for key cards you can expect a ♠ loser if PD doesn't have the K since he didn't splinter in ♠. Ask for Kings which invites a grand slam and you should then stay of it!

[Zelandakh]

 neilkaz, on 2015-June-14, 18:10, said:

You avoid getting to 7 by not bidding it! If you bid 4NT to ask for key cards you can expect a ♠ loser if PD doesn't have the K since he didn't splinter in ♠. Ask for Kings which invites a grand slam and you should then stay of it!

This has all already been written (over 3 years ago!)...but take a look at post #13 (and follow-ups) for why this is not a complete solution.

[Lovera]

So standing the things neither W nor E can contribute for grand but what's happen if 4♠ and K♣ are traded ? Now we have KQ in spade and A4 in club and after 6♥ E can count 13 tricks (1 in club, 5 in diamond, 4 in heart and 2+1A of partner in spade) and bids 7♥. Another grand is if in spade we have xx and in club AKQ because query in club for third round controll starts if is Q or xx (but this one only in query interested - xx aside is not indicated).

[Zelandakh]

 Lovera, on 2015-June-15, 06:56, said:

So standing the things neither W nor E can contribute for grand but what's happen if 4♠ and K♣ are traded ?

The RKC approach does not have a serious problem with any ♠Kx holding. The challenge Andy set is in finding the slow spade loser from a ♠Kxx holding without giving up on another case. I am not convinced that anyone from either side (RKC or cues) has tabled a satisfactory answer to that one yet.

[Lovera]

In RKCB King search is based on cue bidding (probably it's sufficent because other cases -4 Kings- are rare) and structurarly there can be a solution (resolved in other way).

[Zelandakh]

 Lovera, on 2015-June-15, 07:32, said:

In RKCB King search is based on cue bidding (probably it's sufficent because other cases -4 Kings- are rare) and structurarly there can be a solution (resolved in other way).

So what is your actual solution to Andy's example (Hand 1 in post #13)?

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-15, 07:41, said:

So what is your actual solution to Andy's example (Hand 1 in post #13)?

Via 5NT could be 6♥ meaning 0 or 4 Kings (and in this case 0 it's impossibile)

[Zelandakh]

 Lovera, on 2015-June-15, 09:45, said:

Via 5NT could be 6♥ meaning 0 or 4 Kings (and in this case 0 it's impossibile)

And how does this identify the slow spade loser?

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-15, 09:48, said:

And how does this identify the slow spade loser?

When you tells about "slow spade loser" it is better if explain with an example, thanks. If you query with 5♠(=? Q) instead you know there is not Q/xx (and than there is other one) because answer is 6♥(=neg.ve or trump), bye.

[Zelandakh]

 Lovera, on 2015-June-15, 10:14, said:

When you tells about "slow spade loser" it is better if explain with an example, thanks. If you query with 5♠(=? Q) instead you know there is not Q/xx (and than there is other one) because answer is 6♥(=neg.ve or trump), bye.

Yes, you can choose to make an SSA in spades instead of a king ask but that means you are guessing on a far wider range of hands. This is the issue that is being discussed. YOu might find it helpful to review Andy's post (#13) and the discussion thereafter.

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-15, 10:51, said:

Yes, you can choose to make an SSA in spades instead of a king ask but that means you are guessing on a far wider range of hands. This is the issue that is being discussed. YOu might find it helpful to review Andy's post (#13) and the discussion thereafter.

To be clear: i don't discuss SSA (that can be a convention that you probably know well) but i don't. My knowledge are of "old school" and all on natural biddings.Fourthemore i stay on RKCB before passing (eventually) on other slam bidding because the solution must be find here. And infact what' s happen if anyone don't know SSA or Kickback ?

[Zelandakh]

To be clear, why don't you take each of the hands, the OP plus the three from #13, and give your auctions with explanations?

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-15, 14:05, said:

To be clear, why don't you take each of the hands, the OP plus the three from #13, and give your auctions with explanations?

Hi Zelandakh, you know that are two ways -artificial and natural one - to approach a problem each other with any difficult/complexity and i like more natural method(s) and relative logic. I hope don't make a conflict when i started to talk about 3rd round control and relative position(s), bye.

[Zelandakh]

I don't see a conflict. However, you seem to claim that you can solve all of the issue son this hand using your chosen (natural) methods and I am asking you to show how you do this with specific auctions for the 4 hands given in this thread.

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-June-16, 11:38, said:

I don't see a conflict. However, you seem to claim that you can solve all of the issue son this hand using your chosen (natural) methods and I am asking you to show how you do this with specific auctions for the 4 hands given in this thread.

Well, infact there is not conflict because art. and nat. convention are different and the using frequence it'd depend about its complexity (i.e. art. conv. allow to cover more possibilty) and about method this is not a mine convention. You can see, re-reading what i has told, that combined use already cover many situations and also query again help to solve with adjuntive information. I try to explain it step by step than slowly, bye.