[pilun]

---

3♥ = 6-1-3-3
4♦ = 7 QPs (3/2/1)
4N = ♠ - yes, ♦ - 0/4+ QP (so 0 this time)
5♦ = ♣ - 0/4+ QP, so A-Q.
5♠ = ?

With DCB, we switch to positive cueing (PCB) with singletons.
Our agreement with stiff honours devalues K & Q:
A = 3 QP
K = 1 QP, then cue to show it
Q = 0 QP, then ignore?

So this is the question.

DO you ignore stiff queens completely? Or
Do ignore them when counting QP but still cue them as stiff A/K/Q?

[mw64ahw]

Not an approach I use, but I wouldn't ignore them completely. Valuing then depends on whether partner has bid the suit and you can identify value.

[awm]

We do not ignore stiff queens at all, so I suppose I cannot answer this question.

[pilun]

awm, on 2026-February-17, 11:16, said:

We do not ignore stiff queens at all, so I suppose I cannot answer this question.

Thanks for that.
Sounds like you treat stiff A/K/Q at full value and show them.
It would take a lot of time to playtest all this.

[awm]

What we've recently decided to do, which is quite opposed to some other players here, is to not only count singleton honours at full value in the RPs but to scan the singleton FIRST. We stop if holding a singleton A/K/Q and skip if holding no honour (reverse of what we usually do).

[foobar]

awm, on 2026-February-18, 11:23, said:

What we've recently decided to do, which is quite opposed to some other players here, is to not only count singleton honours at full value in the RPs but to scan the singleton FIRST. We stop if holding a singleton A/K/Q and skip if holding no honour (reverse of what we usually do).

Wow, this seems really interesting. Can you please share the details with insights from specific hands if possible?

[ynhhyjb]

pilun, on 2026-February-17, 04:41, said:

---

3♥ = 6-1-3-3
4♦ = 7 QPs (3/2/1)
4N = ♠ - yes, ♦ - 0/4+ QP (so 0 this time)
5♦ = ♣ - 0/4+ QP, so A-Q.
5♠ = ?

With DCB, we switch to positive cueing (PCB) with singletons.
Our agreement with stiff honours devalues K & Q:
A = 3 QP
K = 1 QP, then cue to show it
Q = 0 QP, then ignore?

So this is the question.

DO you ignore stiff queens completely? Or
Do ignore them when counting QP but still cue them as stiff A/K/Q?

I play relay precision,I'll share my method
3♥ = 6-1-3-3
4♦ = 4 KPs (KP,A=2KP,K=1KP)
4N = ♠=yes(♠A), ♦ =0/3 KP (♦=0,♣=2KP,4-2=2,♣A)
5♦ = no ♠Q
5♠ = no ♦Q
5NT:relay;6♥ =♣Q,stiff♥Q/♥K or ♥J no ♦J
7NT:TP
6+ suits do no scan J and a single suit scans stiff K/Q and J

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-February-17, 04:41, said:

---

3♥ = 6-1-3-3
4♦ = 7 QPs (3/2/1)
4N = ♠ - yes, ♦ - 0/4+ QP (so 0 this time)
5♦ = ♣ - 0/4+ QP, so A-Q.
5♠ = ?

With DCB, we switch to positive cueing (PCB) with singletons.
Our agreement with stiff honours devalues K & Q:
A = 3 QP
K = 1 QP, then cue to show it
Q = 0 QP, then ignore?

So this is the question.

DO you ignore stiff queens completely? Or
Do ignore them when counting QP but still cue them as stiff A/K/Q?

Playing KKR, the bidding will go:

...3♥ (6=1=3=3) - 3♠ ®
...4♦ (4 AK) - 4♥ (DCB)
...4N (♠ A/K, AK ♦ or none) - 5♣ (DCB)
...5♦ (no Q♠) - 5♥ -> Note that with singleton or void, KKR scans only two suits
...5♠ (no Q♦) - 5N (DCB)
...6♦, Q♣ and not stiff K♥, so clearly Axxxxx x xxx AQx

On this hand, it seems like the systemic decision to not scan stiff Qs precludes us going beyond the 6-level. In fact, as declarer West must be a little concerned about an opening ♣ lead through AQx.

[foobar]

pilun, on 2026-February-17, 04:41, said:

---

3♥ = 6-1-3-3
4♦ = 7 QPs (3/2/1)
4N = ♠ - yes, ♦ - 0/4+ QP (so 0 this time)
5♦ = ♣ - 0/4+ QP, so A-Q.
5♠ = ?

With DCB, we switch to positive cueing (PCB) with singletons.
Our agreement with stiff honours devalues K & Q:
A = 3 QP
K = 1 QP, then cue to show it
Q = 0 QP, then ignore?

So this is the question.

DO you ignore stiff queens completely? Or
Do ignore them when counting QP but still cue them as stiff A/K/Q?

Nick,

On this hand following the 4♦ response showing 7 QPs, isn't there a legitimate concern that responder might be Axxxxx x Kxx Kxx? In any case, DCB is fine since we can bail out in 5♠ if it's indeed that hand. Your treatment of 0/4 looks pretty interesting, and I am wondering how it compares with the awm's PCB approach (which uses odd/even).

In a previous thread, DinDip had alluded to facing "marriage problems" with PCB on some hands, and it will be interesting to know more about your specific scheme and how it tackles those hands.

[pilun]

foobar, on 2026-February-27, 13:19, said:

Nick,

On this hand following the 4♦ response showing 7 QPs, isn't there a legitimate concern that responder might be Axxxxx x Kxx Kxx? In any case, DCB is fine since we can bail out in 5♠ if it's indeed that hand. Your treatment of 0/4 looks pretty interesting, and I am wondering how it compares with the awm's PCB approach (which uses odd/even).

In a previous thread, DinDip had alluded to facing "marriage problems" with PCB on some hands, and it will be interesting to know more about your specific scheme and how it tackles those hands.

Opposite the minor kings, we'll play 6♠ from the wrong side. When South has ♣A, North will often lead something else.
Parity DCB has clear merit but we are set in our ways. We very rarely come across a hand where we think another method might be better.
We keep it simple and devote more effort to finding the right game, plus non-relay and competitive auctions.