[straube]

So after we relay partner's pattern, we have the option of parity cue bidding or RKC.

If we choose RKC, partner zooms into denial cue bidding.

What's the best order after we know about the queen? For instance, obviously we look for side kings next, but do we look for singleton kings? Do we look for the trump jack and do we look for this before side queens or after side queens?

[Zelandakh]

Slightly different context I know but I treat singleton kings like side queens and side queens come before the trump jack. So my order would probably be

1. 5 key cards
2. trump queen
3. side kings in suits of length 2 or more, longest suit first
4. side queens in suits of length 2 or more, longest first
5. side kings in singleton suits
6. trump jack
7. side queens in singleton suits
8. side jacks

Or you could just look at what expert pairs who use spiral scan do.

[blackshoe]

Spiral scan:

After the keycard ask, step one asks for the trump queen unless already known. Step two asks for side kings in this order:

1. King of a side suit bid by asker, if any.
1a. If asker didn't bid a side suit, king of a side suit bid by replier, if any.
2. Other side kings in ascending order.
3. Side Queens as above.
4. Jacks, starting with the trump jack, and continuing as above.

Known singleton or void suits in replier's hand are skipped.

In each case, the next step by replier denies the card requested; the second step shows that card and denies the next one in the scan, and so on.

Asker can "zoom", skipping steps. This shows (or shows disinterest in) the card(s) skipped, and asks for the next card as in the order above.

[straube]

Thanks to both. I get the sense that the singleton king isn't as important as I thought. Perhaps it should match our order for parity cue bidding (easier to remember)

1) side kings (not singleton)
2) side queens (not singleton)
3) singleton kings
4) trump jack
5) other jacks

Realistically, we will seldom have room for most of this. What do you think, foobar?

[dake50]

Realistically, we will seldom have room for most of this.
***
Start lower?!

[straube]

dake50, on 2012-May-09, 20:32, said:

Realistically, we will seldom have room for most of this.
***
Start lower?!

I agree. We occasionally start RKC lower than 3N, but even then...

[Free]

Starting lower isn't good enough. Just don't play RKC...

[straube]

Free, on 2012-May-13, 02:45, said:

Starting lower isn't good enough. Just don't play RKC...

RKC has been very helpful to us...especially for the minors where we need to know the "key" cards before we pass 5m.

[Zelandakh]

I find it very useful to have 2 different methods for investigating slams and one of those being RKCB is just fine. The solution I use is having relay breaks into NT to ask for queens and jacks. I also do not always have space for it though. The truth is that you can cope with the vast majority of hands just by locating the aces, kings and queens. If you have space for jacks then fine; do not worry too much about it if you cannot optimise every hand though. I do not know of any system that can get every hand right down to that level of detail every time.