[Lovera]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-October-15, 19:26, said:

You didn't answer a bunch of my questions.

What is the answer to 5H query with HK+SQ?
You say 6c shows CK + SQ. Does it deny HK? What if answerer has HK+CK+SQ, what does he bid?


Your method randomly assigns importance to honors in the suit of the trump Q ask. Which is random, the Q ask is 5d over 5c and 5H over 5d. There's no logic that says RKC asker wants to know about honors in this suit just because it's randomly the next step over the 4nt answer. Whereas the trump Q is *always* important. So answering questions about HK (and apparently HQ as well? how? you say Jxx or less in this suit, how answer with say HQ and not SQ?) over 5H ask seems wasting space on an often irrelevant question. The normal method can inquire about heart honors directly after the more important trump Q information.

Your method may have opener chew up space showing HK and not knowing about hold SQ or not yet. And asker only care about SQ, and this interfere if he want to know about CK + SQ.

In your method, apparently it goes 4nt-5d-5h-5nt-6c-6s, to find out that answerer has trump Q and no outside kings. Compare to normal method, 4nt-5d-5h-5nt, you are 3 steps lower with the same info, and can now ask about third round controls in any suit.

When the bidding is at sixth level is not ambigous and usual (this part is the same as in RKB) then 6♥ , doesn't deny infact is showing both honors and for another King you have to query directly that suit. When you have HQ but not SQ the answer is 5♠(= trump agree). The last of yours post is a generic answer in the set that has anyhow to combine it with the hand of partner relizing the same result of 6♠ while resolving the eventual ambiguity.

[Lovera]

If I remember correctly there should be a second version of the RKCB (which I had found via bridgeguys.com now unfortunately closed) that questioned for the Queen of the agreed trump but not as we know it but with an answer to two possibilities (1 step = no Queen, 2 step = yes Queen) and, in this way, allowing you to query directly in each suit already at the fifth level. Still on the subject that I'm trying to develop, if someone has some hands to propose where he has some declarative doubts, he can present it anyway.

[Stephen Tu]

OK, so from what you have answered, after 4nt-5d-5h:

• 5S = no HK, no SQ
• 5nt = HK or SQ but not both
• 6c = CK + SQ
• 6d = DK + SQ (presumably denying CK?)
• 6h = HK + SQ (presumably denying both CK + DK?)

So in terms of finding kings with the SQ, how is this any better than normal method? In normal method, if holding SQ, the answer is completely the same. And to find another king is still the same.
The main problem is your method commits to small slam not holding the trump Q. This is bad. There are cases where asker does not want to be in small slam missing one key card and the trump Q. But your method randomly assumes HK is important, because it happens to coincide with the trump Q ask. This is a fallacy. Partner can easily have hands where trump Q is a potential loser, but HK is not (he has stiff heart, or source of tricks where later rounds of hearts can be discarded). Partner *always* cares about the trump Q. He may or may not care about the HK. Your method screws him when he doesn't care about the HK.

A smaller problem is that you don't leave room for third round control asks if SQ + no kings (normal method more efficient, since 5nt = SQ + no kings, you don't waste a whole level disambiguating HK from SQ).

You also claimed that your negative answer to the trump Q ask also guaranteed Jxx or worse in the asking suit, hearts. But I don't see how this is possible in your answering structure, since with HQ but not SQ, the answer is 5S. So the only info is no K in the asking suit, he can still have Q but not trump Q. But again I don't see why anyone would ever care, as the asking suit is random coincidence. Why does asker care about hearts if partner has 3 keycards but cares about diamonds if 1? (playing 1430, or reverse it if playing 0314). The asking suit is a random step, not related to suits held by the partnership. The trump Q is always important, the Q of asking suit may or not be; info about that suit if critical should have been resolved earlier in the auction by cue-bidding.

[Stephen Tu]

 Lovera, on 2019-October-16, 10:06, said:

If I remember correctly there should be a second version of the RKCB (which I had found via bridgeguys.com now unfortunately closed) that questioned for the Queen of the agreed trump but not as we know it but with an answer to two possibilities (1 step = no Queen, 2 step = yes Queen) and, in this way, allowing you to query directly in each suit already at the fifth level. Still on the subject that I'm trying to develop, if someone has some hands to propose where he has some declarative doubts, he can present it anyway.

The normal way, spades trumps, 4nt-5d-5h:

• 5s = no trump Q
• 5nt = trump Q no outside kings (so 6 suit ask for third round control, doubleton or Q)
• 6lower suit = trump Q, that king, deny lower kings. (bid 6 level suit ask for that king in addition).

[Lovera]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-October-16, 10:24, said:

The normal way, spades trumps, 4nt-5d-5h:

• 5s = no trump Q
• 5nt = trump Q no outside kings (so 6 suit ask for third round control, doubleton or Q)
• 6lower suit = trump Q, that king, deny lower kings. (bid 6 level suit ask for that king in addition).

Yes, but i'm looking for this other RKCB version that i remember i saw on bridgeguys.com.

[Lovera]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-October-16, 10:21, said:

OK, so from what you have answered, after 4nt-5d-5h:

• 5S = no HK, no SQ
• 5nt = HK or SQ but not both
• 6c = CK + SQ
• 6d = DK + SQ (presumably denying CK?)
• 6h = HK + SQ (presumably denying both CK + DK?)

So in terms of finding kings with the SQ, how is this any better than normal method? In normal method, if holding SQ, the answer is completely the same. And to find another king is still the same.
The main problem is your method commits to small slam not holding the trump Q. This is bad. There are cases where asker does not want to be in small slam missing one key card and the trump Q. But your method randomly assumes HK is important, because it happens to coincide with the trump Q ask. This is a fallacy. Partner can easily have hands where trump Q is a potential loser, but HK is not (he has stiff heart, or source of tricks where later rounds of hearts can be discarded). Partner *always* cares about the trump Q. He may or may not care about the HK. Your method screws him when he doesn't care about the HK.

A smaller problem is that you don't leave room for third round control asks if SQ + no kings (normal method more efficient, since 5nt = SQ + no kings, you don't waste a whole level disambiguating HK from SQ).

You also claimed that your negative answer to the trump Q ask also guaranteed Jxx or worse in the asking suit, hearts. But I don't see how this is possible in your answering structure, since with HQ but not SQ, the answer is 5S. So the only info is no K in the asking suit, he can still have Q but not trump Q. But again I don't see why anyone would ever care, as the asking suit is random coincidence. Why does asker care about hearts if partner has 3 keycards but cares about diamonds if 1? (playing 1430, or reverse it if playing 0314). The asking suit is a random step, not related to suits held by the partnership. The trump Q is always important, the trump Q asking suit may or not be; info about that suit if critical should have been resolved earlier in the auction by cue-bidding.

It's not properly so: the answer of 5♠ is made when there is not Q of trump agree+in the suit of query you have Jxx/- or, not having Q, you have to enter on sixth level (in this case not). Fourthemore that indicate is not a general set of answers. There is also the other case of 4NT-5♣, 5♦(=?) and the possibility that you have in that suit of query the Queen indicate with the Ace aside.

[pescetom]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-October-16, 10:21, said:

Partner *always* cares about the trump Q.

Except when he knows we have extra length.
Just nit-picking, everything else you said is spot on IMO.

[johnu]

 pescetom, on 2019-October-16, 11:16, said:

Except when he knows we have extra length.
Just nit-picking, everything else you said is spot on IMO.

The Blackwood bidder isn't going to ask about the trump queen if he doesn't need the answer As has been well documented, with 10+ trump you have at least ~90% chance of not losing a trick to the queen so extra length can be equivalent to holding the queen.

[pescetom]

 johnu, on 2019-October-16, 13:54, said:

The Blackwood bidder isn't going to ask about the trump queen if he doesn't need the answer As has been well documented, with 10+ trump you have at least ~90% chance of not losing a trick to the queen so extra length can be equivalent to holding the queen.

That's all I was saying, he doesn't care about the queen.

[Lovera]

As already mentioned from the beginning of this topic we are in the RKB field and its already known application modalities with an extension as regards 5 ♥ and / or 5 ♠ and 5NT which, considered ambiguous, they have the possibility to have a double answer wanting to give indication both on what is had in the same suit used to ask for the Queen of trump as for the presence or less of the trump Queen (as is usually bidded). I did not initially present tables to give space to this concept of the ambiguity in the answer that must necessarily be resolved in order to proceed further in the investigation of the hand of the partner.

[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]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-October-16, 16:08, said:

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]

 Lovera, on 2019-October-17, 01:28, said:

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

[Lovera]

 Zelandakh, on 2019-October-17, 09:57, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2019-October-17, 09:57, said:

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]

 Lovera, on 2019-October-23, 10:43, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2019-October-24, 17:38, said:

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]

 Lovera, on 2019-October-25, 03:04, said:

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.