[DanG4503]

---

Gib's response to 4nt of 5♠ promise the ♥Q but my hand got that heart!!
.. and GIB's Convention Card says 0314 but no farther explanation of special responses.. so I assume the Standard RKC responses..
Dan G

[smerriman]

GIB indeed plays standard RKCB responses.

The BridgeBum page is lacking slightly - it is standard practice to "show the queen" if you have a known 10 card fit or better, because that is just as good as the queen. (You don't want to count AKxxx vs xxxxx as a losing trump trick - or, in this case, AKJxxxx opposite any four trumps).

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2021-March-01, 13:08, said:

GIB indeed plays standard RKCB responses.

The BridgeBum page is lacking slightly - it is standard practice to "show the queen" if you have a known 10 card fit or better, because that is just as good as the queen. (You don't want to count AKxxx vs xxxxx as a losing trump trick - or, in this case, AKJxxxx opposite any four trumps).

My main concern with all these defences of GiB is that GiB's standard practice does not seem to be documented anywhere

I do like the idea of being able to break free from RKCB shackles if you feel as responder things should progress

I think my favorite GiB RKCB response is even number of keycards and a void with just a void (no keycards). Its particularly constructive since its a high level bid that prevents you avoiding 6 level most of the time. Its done that a few times. In bridge and blackwood I take even as 2 or 4. There are mathematical arguments that you could include 0 I guess

[smerriman]

thepossum, on 2021-March-01, 21:14, said:

My main concern with all these defences of GiB is that GiB's standard practice does not seem to be documented anywhere

I agree GIB's documentation is severely lacking. But in this case it's more just standard RKCB practice, rather than anything to do with GIB as such (and once you've realised why it makes no sense to deny the queen with a 10 card fit, it's not something you ever forget).

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2021-March-01, 22:02, said:

I agree GIB's documentation is severely lacking. But in this case it's more just standard RKCB practice, rather than anything to do with GIB as such (and once you've realised why it makes no sense to deny the queen with a 10 card fit, it's not something you ever forget).

I agree, I wouldn't be as upset with that one as with 0 keycards and a void

It would be sad though if the player making the Blackwood query was allowing for 3-0 trump split

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2021-March-03, 18:15, said:

It would be sad though if the player making the Blackwood query was allowing for 3-0 trump split

The odds of 3-0 are 22% and it's still not certain opponents will win a trick. Also the inference that partner has extra length (when we are already looking at the queen) can make the difference. It's clearly a wise convention.

[Douglas43]

pescetom, on 2021-March-04, 07:05, said:

The odds of 3-0 are 22% and it's still not certain opponents will win a trick. Also the inference that partner has extra length (when we are already looking at the queen) can make the difference. It's clearly a wise convention.

Good point about the RKCB article on Bridgebum not mentioning treating extra length in a known fit as equivalent to Q of trumps. Bridgebum seems to be pretty much a one-person operation and a labour of love. I have contributed to one or two items (I expanded the "Crowhurst" article - a form of checkback using 2C to cover both features and range) and the editor was friendly and welcomed the contribution. If you have suggestions I think he'd be probably open to contact and a bit of encouragement.