[kenrexford]

I just had an idea.

My wife is afraid of RKCB. I don't blame her.

Suppose, however, a new method, one that could be called "IQRKCB" (or "IQ" for short), for "Immediate Queen RKCB."

The idea is this. Spades are agreed. Exclusion RKCB is out either because of context or because partner doesn't do that expert stuff. Instead, this structure is used:

With the trump Queen, bids "IQ 4NT." Partner will answer like normal Blackwood, but adding the trump King to his count. 5C, then shows 0 or 4 key cards, 5D one, 5H 2, and 5S three. No need to figure out 0 or 3 (should not be tough, but this is for newbies). No Queen-ask (and no 1430 or RKCB discussions). No new steps to remember.

Without the trump Queen, answer as if partner bid 4NT, using the same steps. So, a call of 5C instead of 4NT shows 0 or 4 without the trump Queen.

I kind of like this for people afraid of RKCB.

But, I also wonder if this wouldn't also have some advantages if enhanced for an expert style. The answering of the trump Queen question by who asks would create more space for other things after a stacked answer. (5C still 0 or 3, but then 5D asks for specific Kings, for example.)

[BunnyGo]

Sorry, I wasn't quite able to discern one detail from this. Does your system only allow a bid of 4NT with the trump queen? It seems like if you don't have the trump queen you have to "answer" the blackwood bid whether it was asked or not. Is this correct?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Let's see if I got this right in this example:

1NT - 4H! ( Texas )
4S - ??

a ) 4NT = iQRKC "asking" and I have the ♠Q ( steps are 0/4, 1, 2, 3 )
b ) 5D = nQRKC "telling" ( 1 key ) and I don't have the ♠Q ( 5D = 2nd step above 4NT = 1 )

where iQ = i have the trump Q
and nQ = no trump Q in my hand

[kenrexford]

Exactly, at least as far as it goes.

I mean, you could still do the steps as 5♣ for 0/3, 5♦ 1/4, or 5♥ 2/5. But, the idea is simplification (for some) and space (for others).

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-29, 21:18, said:

My wife is afraid of RKCB. I don't blame her.

Why on earth would someone be "afraid" of RKCB?

[ArtK78]

So, if I understand this correctly, the person with the trump Q can ask, but the person without the trump Q can only tell.

Given that the decision whether one should ask or tell is dictated by the entire hand one holds, not whether one holds the trump Q, I find this to be kind of silly (with all due respect).

[mtvesuvius]

BeerRKCB anyone?

You side NT with the beer, and otherwise let partner declare. Seems like an awesome system.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-30, 05:47, said:

Exactly, at least as far as it goes.

I mean, you could still do the steps as 5♣ for 0/3, 5♦ 1/4, or 5♥ 2/5. But, the idea is simplification (for some) and space (for others).

I like it, not for the simplicity, but that I'm a RKC "mechanic' ( some may say "maniac" ).
I think I would like only 3 steps:
5C = 0/3
5D = 1/4
5H = 2

Then, what is also appealing, is that the "next step" would now be a K-ask ( cheapest specific King if you will ) since the trump Q is no longer an issue.

That means the "2nd step" would be an "outside Q-ask" ( or 3rd Rnd Ctrl Ask ).

Also, this could be incorporated into Minorwood after suit agreement in a GF auction:

4m = iQ-Minorwood -- "asking" but "I have the trump Q " ;
and any bid above 4m = 0/3, 1/4, or 2 -- "telling" and " I don't have the trump Q "

Advantages for Minorwood are the subsequent K-ask at a lower level and plausible outside Q-asks which are practically non-existent otherwise.

For example:
1D - 2D!( inverted, GF )
4D!( asking w/♦Q ) - 4S ( 1/4 )
??
...4NT = to play
...5C = K-ask ( normally would be ♦Q-ask and 5H = kickback for K's )
...5D = to play
...5H = ♥ Q-ask
...5S = ♠ Q-ask
...6C = ♣ Q-ask

[kenrexford]

A couple of other things.

First, it may seem (like Art thought) that captaincy is transferred, but that is incorrect. Take a simple auction. Blah-Blah-Blah, then 5♦ as "1 or 4 without the Queen." The person bidding 5♦ remains captain. Partner will (1) resign to five of trumps if that holding is insufficient for slam, (2) immediately bid specific Kings if that holding is enough for a possible grand, (3) bid six if that holding is only enough for a small slam. (One might even include a one-under five as "slam last train" for some reason.) Think of this as somewhat like Culbertson's 4NT/5NT convention.

Second, if the usual captain is the usual declarer, the frequent showing rather than asking reduces the number of useful lead-directors.

Third, the entire "IQ" concept actually is intended to be part of a bigger scheme. "IQ" means immediate "cue" rather than "queen." In the simple situation, the asker cues (or fails to cue) the trump Queen, which has benefits. In other situations, the "IQ6KCB" perhaps, the ask-or-answer is done with traditional responses (including Queen-asks), but the immediate cue is of a critical side focal suit King. E.g., after 1♠-P-2♦-P-3♦-P-3♠, ask with the diamond King but answer immediately without it. The "IQ" might be a specific void (after showing 4441 or 5440, ask with stiff but answer with void, which is cheaper than Exclusion) or might be control of the opponents' suit (after 1♠-(3♥)-4♥-P-?, ask with heart control but answer without heart control, which is cheaper than a 5♥ asking bid).

[kenrexford]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-30, 10:47, said:

BeerRKCB anyone?

You side NT with the beer, and otherwise let partner declare. Seems like an awesome system.

I also find this alternative idea incredibly good, but only when no one has bid trumps yet, obviously.

[awm]

Like a lot of schemes that seem to pop up in the forums, this approach suffers from keycard-itis.

What I mean is, supposing that looking for keycards is your only way to investigate slam, this method seems perfectly reasonable. However there are a lot of other approaches to slam auctions including showing shape, showing extra values, looking for control (ace or king or singleton or void) in a side suit, and so forth. Keycard is probably the worst of options.

Playing this approach, suppose partner opens 4♠. I want to look for slam. All I can do is bid 4NT (with the trump queen) or show my keycards at the five level (without the trump queen). Playing more standard methods I can isolate a problem suit by cuebidding at the five level, or I can make a general invite via 5♠. These approaches seem more frequently useful to me than what you've described.

[kenrexford]

awm, on 2011-March-30, 13:47, said:

Like a lot of schemes that seem to pop up in the forums, this approach suffers from keycard-itis.

What I mean is, supposing that looking for keycards is your only way to investigate slam, this method seems perfectly reasonable. However there are a lot of other approaches to slam auctions including showing shape, showing extra values, looking for control (ace or king or singleton or void) in a side suit, and so forth. Keycard is probably the worst of options.

Playing this approach, suppose partner opens 4♠. I want to look for slam. All I can do is bid 4NT (with the trump queen) or show my keycards at the five level (without the trump queen). Playing more standard methods I can isolate a problem suit by cuebidding at the five level, or I can make a general invite via 5♠. These approaches seem more frequently useful to me than what you've described.

Yes, you are correct that if you played IQ in every conceivable situation, there might be something better.

However, one could decide to use this approach only in specific, defined situations.

Consider, for instance, that a person who already denied a void would not want to use Exclusion. A partnership who also just went through an exhaustive cuebidding sequence might not need much more in the way of cuebids. In some situations, therefore, some permutation of IQ might be just right. The key might be in deciding upon the circumstances where a permutation of IQ applies.

The simplest is the one where Meckwell uses an ask-or-answer. Texas-v-Jacoby followed by 5-level. If Meckwell sees no fruit in anything but ask-or-answer, then perhaps IQ works there fairly well.

[han]

I think this method needs to be further developed. Write a book about it, including a detailed description of when the method is on and when it is not. Then, give it to your wife.

It might just cure her fear of RKC.

[kenrexford]

han, on 2011-March-30, 14:25, said:

I think this method needs to be further developed. Write a book about it, including a detailed description of when the method is on and when it is not. Then, give it to your wife.

It might just cure her fear of RKC.

roflol

Actually, the version for my wife is simple:

With the Queen, ask. Without the Queen, answer.

The answers are just like Blackwood -- 0 (4), 1 (5), 2, 3. But, add in the trump King.

I told her about simple RKCB, and she ran away. I told her about this, and she likes it. The simple version is clearly better than Blackwood. So, whatever works, eh?


I don't see her using the full monty, though.

[ArtK78]

han, on 2011-March-30, 14:25, said:

I think this method needs to be further developed. Write a book about it, including a detailed description of when the method is on and when it is not. Then, give it to your wife.

It might just cure her fear of RKC.

Or instill an even greater fear of IQRKCB, which will dwarf her fear of RKCB.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2011-March-30, 15:11, said:

Or instill an even greater fear of IQRKCB, which will dwarf her fear of RKCB.

I believe that was the point.

[Vampyr]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-30, 15:07, said:

With the Queen, ask. Without the Queen, answer.

Working out when a cue bid is an "answer" or something else seems like a real headache. Anyway, I am really wondering why this is less frightening than Roman Keycard Blackwood.

[tolvyrj]

My wife is afraid of spiders and i think thats also irrational . Though i must say araknofobia is more difficult because u meet spiders more often than situations where u need to ask aces from prds hand .
Seriously, u system is harder to learn than RKCB; 0314 or 1403 2 without and 2 with the trump Q.

[Flameous]

RKC is simple for asking the question and when you get 5H/S answer, but many have trouble with Q asks and some such and I don't really blame for that. This seems to solve exactly that problem.
I think this won't really be an upgrade on RKC even with better agreements. At best you can win couple of steps for specific king ask. Sure this might be useful when minor is trumps but then you'd often rather also play kickback/minorwood or turbo.
And it's quite a job to consider when this would be on.

[barmar]

I have a hard time believing someone who finds RKCB too complicated would be less confused by this two-way system. Is it just the queen-ask part of RKCB that scares her?