[jillybean]

4♣ "CRO" is a very popular club treatment here in Aotearoa, so much so that 4♣ is used almost exclusively for Ace asking.

After 4♣

4♦ 1/4 Aces
4♥ 3/0 Aces
4♠ 2 Aces same Colour
4NT 2 Aces same Rank (Major/Minor)
5♣ 2 Aces - opposite (major & minor)
5D 2 Aces, 1 King
5H 2 Aces, 2 Kings
and so on

I'm playing with a few people who are interested to learn 2/1, I don't want to change all of their systems and CRO is something they seem to want to hold on to. While I don't like CRO it may be because cue bidding is virtually non existent and players will jump to 4♣ and leave partner in the dark as to where they are going.
Another problem here is I think people may have included the #King response into 4♣ Ace ask, where some play #King ask as another step.

If I can introduce cue bidding, does it matter so much if we use CRO or RKC responses? (
As I write this I think I know the answer, after CRO we still do not know about the K,Q trump and are at the 5 level.)

[DavidKok]

In 2/1 the players have extra bidding space to explore slam at a low level, exchanging more information before committing or signing off. If you can teach them to make use of that space (in particular, teach them that jumping on a 2/1 auction is very rare) they will gain most of the benefits without changing anything about their ace-asking tools.

As for RKC Blackwood versus CRO (versus Redwood, Kickback, Gerber, Voidwood, Minorwood, Double-barrel RKC, regular Blackwood and I'm sure there's more), I don't think it matters much. If your players feel strongly about one of these over the others I would accept that and focus your energy on other parts of the system. If you are going to spend time on this, try to explain to them that these conventions are meant to be used to stay out of bad slams, not to get to good slams. You should generally only ask for aces (or key cards) after you have established there is sufficient playing strength for 12 tricks, and any of the above conventions will warn you in case you are off two aces.

[LBengtsson]

I am all for finding out for controls at a lower level, so those who think that 4♣ bid CRO is not good then all I say is that any slam bidding convention is not always perfect. all have some fault with different types of hand. the problem I find with some players is that they jump to these 4♣ CRO/4nt rkcb conventions too quickly probably through not enough experience or being lazy when there are other ways of exploring slam. before bidding 4♣/4nt you need to know what to do after. these conventions are there to save you guessing. with trump fits, it is just as important to know if both hands have mirror dead doubletons in one suit xx opposite qx. the difference bewteen an ace in one suit or another could be the difference between a made slam or a poor one.

[jillybean]

Yes, the focus on CRO has been clouding the real issue for me. There is a significant use of jumps to 4♣ with GF hands here, "I don't want you to pass, I don't want to give the opponents information"

I had this hand the other day;

---

And this one;

---

Between rounds I said, sorry for that last hand partner. BTW, why did you bid 1nt and not 1♠?
And the reply was "I knew we didn't have a spade fit and didn't want to give the opponents information."

[Zelandakh]

This schedule of responses was actually the very first Blackwood variant I came across as it was used by a pair of teachers at my middle school. They referred to it as Roman Blackwood. Even as a pre-teen I thought it sounded like a poor idea and the era of RKCB has hardly increased its desirability. In my view, if you cannot persuade them to move over to key card responses (RKCG), play your "dumb lady" card and insist on simple Rolling Gerber. That is at least space-efficient even though you lose the helpful trump king/queen information.

As for your post #4, the obvious follow-up question is how your partner knew there was no spade fit. Are you playing Flannery?

In any case, there is something of an impression being given here of many auctions jumping around. Playing this style is likely to be detrimental to your game as the emphasis moves away from cooperative bidding, which is fundamental in natural systems. For me that just would not be any fun but obviously that is a personal thing. Decide for yourself what you want to get out of the experience and how seriously to take the games. If you just want to play socially, it does not really matter too much what the system looks like.

[jillybean]

Zelandakh, on 2021-April-07, 20:07, said:

As for your post #4, the obvious follow-up question is how your partner knew there was no spade fit. Are you playing Flannery?

No, there was no bridge logic to the response but I understand where it comes from. People learning to play this game are taught a system and the "rules" of that system.
Once they can play bridge, they are never told to forget the rules and learn bidding judgement, hand evaluation. Add to that partners who pass forcing bids, players who claim that their way is the only way to bid this hand etc etc and we have what we have at the local clubs, worldwide. Mini-me's , masterminding every hand.
I can't tell you how many times I have been told that I can't open 1nt with 2 doubletons, or worse, without stoppers in every suit.

Zelandakh, on 2021-April-07, 20:07, said:

In any case, there is something of an impression being given here of many auctions jumping around. Playing this style is likely to be detrimental to your game as the emphasis moves away from cooperative bidding, which is fundamental in natural systems. For me that just would not be any fun but obviously that is a personal thing. Decide for yourself what you want to get out of the experience and how seriously to take the games. If you just want to play socially, it does not really matter too much what the system looks like.

These hands are from games I have played with people who are interested in 2/1, not from my regular partners. I could not play like this if it was a regular partnership but I am willing to share what little I know. There is such a tendency for good players to only play with other good players it's very hard when you are wanting to improve your game but keep playing the same systems with inexperienced players. I have been very lucky to have partners who have been willing to help me grow my game and have tolerated my flaws and flights of fancy along the way.

[DavidKok]

A few years ago my partner and I agreed that we first had to learn how to show our hands during the bidding, and once we mastered that skill we could move on to camouflaging our hands and controlling the flow of information during the auction. It may not come as a surprise that we're still on the first step, and so far it is paying off wonderfully (although we did add the 2NT 'De Maas' to our arsenal, which is somewhat camouflaging).

I understand that players who have played bridge a certain way all their life are reluctant to change their ways. I don't envy your position. In my opinion these two hands you have shown are prime examples of uncooperative bidding, taking premature control of the auction. The goal of the bidding should be to get to the best contract with your 26 combined cards, and the main method to do that is by giving an accurate description of your hand and waiting for partner to place the contract.