[shubi]

Roman key card 0314/1403? is it really helps non experts?

[mtvesuvius]

What exactly are you asking here?? If it is whether RKC is helpful, the answer is obviously! I cannot figure out what else this would mean, so... I cannot say much more. And BTW, why is the title of the thread "RKC, FEW BOTTOM boards"? I need a Shubi -> English translator

[Phil]

Adam, meet Shubi.

[akhare]

I am guessing the OP meant to ask about the relative merits of 1430 vs. 0314 and whether it really makes any difference to non-experts.

In any case, discussions about vanilla conventions like this one likely belong in the General or Advanced forums? ...

[inquiry]

shubi, on Apr 13 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

Roman key card 0314/1403? is it really helps non experts?

Yes

[jdonn]

I don't understand the people who criticize RKC. Of course a detailed and thorough set of agreements help a lot, but even casual partnerships who play it seem to have very few misunderstandings imo relative to the huge amount of times the convention gets used and helps.

[blackshoe]

So long as people don't use it when they shouldn't - remembering that it's a tool to keep you out of bad slams, not a tool to find you good ones - RKCB is a great convention, much better than simple Blackwood in most cases. I think the initial responses, at least, are fairly well understood even by novices.

If the question is 1430 or 0314, I don't think there's sufficient advantage to one over the other to override the memory question - ie, if you "grew up" on 0314 and find switching difficult, I wouldn't bother. OTOH, if memory is not a problem, 1430 is probably marginally better.

[shubi]

here are some of the reason i bring this up.
1 suite agreed we all fine.
2 suit agreed which suit?
1 suit agreed and another bid?
2 suit bid none agreed
1 suit bid what?
more asking king
more asking queen
and many more u will find after thinking

[spotlight7]

Hi:

Edwin Kantar wrote the 'books' on RKC.

He answers almost all questions on RKC.

Regards,
Robert

[mtvesuvius]

spotlight7, on Apr 15 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

Hi:

Edwin Kantar wrote the 'books' on RKC.

He answers almost all questions on RKC.

Regards,
Robert

All questions that can be somewhat translated into English that is...

[shubi]

some how we are missing points even ACBL have description of RKC, idea is to both partnership use same thing. this is bad in ONLINE bridge where we play with many deffirent players.

[jdonn]

shubi, on Apr 15 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

some how we are missing points even ACBL have description of RKC, idea is to both partnership use same thing. this is bad in ONLINE bridge where we play with many deffirent players.

They can both read the book.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Apr 16 2009, 12:10 AM, said:

shubi, on Apr 15 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

some how we are missing points even ACBL have description of RKC, idea is to both partnership use same thing. this is bad in ONLINE bridge where we play with many deffirent players.

They can both read the book.

or cook the books, either way.

[kfay]

spotlight7, on Apr 15 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

Hi:

Edwin Kantar wrote the 'books' on RKC.

He answers almost all questions on RKC.

Regards,
Robert

Kantar actually advocates using BOTH 1430 and 0314, depending on if the 'weak' or 'strong' hand is asking.

Theoretically.... sure.... but I think this is too much for anyone.

[Double !]

FWIW, Kantar had 23 chapters available online before he pulled them off and completed the book. So, to say that RKC is relatively simple might not tell the whole story. Actually it can become rather complex if you play the whole structure.
More points are lost on errors and misunderstandings when using conventions, so why not keep it relatively simple and make sure you agree on the basic responses and rebids.
Also, why not simply play kickback 4S when hearts are trump, and 4NT rkc when spades are trump.

DHL

[hanp]

Gotta agree with Inquiry here.