[wyman]

Playing (a flavor of?) WR, we define:

1N - 2D!;
2H - 2S!;
2N! -
... 3C = 6+ clubs, slammish, bad suit [missing (at least?) 2 of the top 3 clubs]
... 3D = 6+ diam, slammish, bad suit
... 3H = 6+ clubs, slammish, good suit
... 3S = 6+ diam, slammish, good suit
... 3N = slammish with 6 solid somewhere [optionally -- I've heard of people just treating this as "good suit"]

And from what I gather, the "full" WR also uses 4C/D/H/S to show major suit slam tries H bad / S bad / H good / S good

So my question is what anyone who plays a full WR now does with the sequence:
1N - 2(M-1);
2M - 4M
since the hand didn't WR.

[bd71]

wyman, on 2013-May-17, 12:08, said:

Playing (a flavor of?) WR, we define:

1N - 2D!;
2H - 2S!;
2N! -
... 3C = 6+ clubs, slammish, bad suit [missing (at least?) 2 of the top 3 clubs]
... 3D = 6+ diam, slammish, bad suit
... 3H = 6+ clubs, slammish, good suit
... 3S = 6+ diam, slammish, good suit
... 3N = slammish with 6 solid somewhere [optionally -- I've heard of people just treating this as "good suit"]

And from what I gather, the "full" WR also uses 4C/D/H/S to show major suit slam tries H bad / S bad / H good / S good

So my question is what anyone who plays a full WR now does with the sequence:
1N - 2(M-1);
2M - 4M
since the hand didn't WR.

Don't know that I have a great answer to your direct question, but two questions/comments:

1. See this recent thread where Jlall throws cold water on the idea of using the transfer-then-bid-4 sequence as "mild slam try." http://www.bridgebas...edium-or-spicy/

2. I've never used this good/bad suit approach for slam exploration in this context or any other. But seems like you have keycard/ace-asking approaches to find out about the top 3 trumps. Is your thinking that this approach adds value because it let's you avoid more 5-level contracts (following RKC sequences that discovered lack of key assets) that might not be safe, or because it solves the minor-suit issues where there may not be room for the full complement of RKC responses?