Talk:Blackwood convention

red spade

about halfway through the article, a spade graphic is incorrectly colored red. i have no idea how that might have happened or how to change it. Niffweed17 06:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

gah, never mind... i didnt realize they just colored in the graphic. Niffweed17 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think this page needs some major work. The lead in was somewhat nebulous as to who exactly has the void and what should be done, etc. I made a few changes, but really I'm not happy with that part. Also, under the Roman Blackwood 2H showed aces that matched (see http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Conventions/RomanBlackwood.html), which is not really mentioned in the article. There's also no mention of 1430 Eljamin 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it really needs major work. Unfortunately, this is one of our better articles (which doesn't imply that it's good but that most others are poor). As for the Roman Blackwood, the section tries to say that the basic idea is that 5♥ basically shows 2 aces, and then countless variations roll on; that is explained in the paragraph that follows (and it's sourced from BridgeGuys). One way or another, you're certainly welcome to improve it in any way you see fit.

Off-topic, but I'd like to turn your attention to WP:MoS#Avoid second-person pronouns. Duja► 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The kickback example looks unconvincing: with 17 points, East would have jumped for his first response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.129.123 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I added short notes about Redwood and Minorwood. Also, I think we should reference Kantar's RKC Blackwood book, prefereably the 4th ed.

Alvin P. Bluthman apbluthman@aol.com

somewood, otherwood

What if the cheapest unbid suit at the 4-level asks for the number of key cards (RKC)? As I recall, that is Redwood. The article says otherwise. Tat variant should be included somehow. --P64 (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blackwood convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622154147/http://www.bridgeguys.com:80/Conventions/1430Blackwood.html to http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/1430Blackwood.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505042501/http://www.bridgeguys.com:80/Conventions/BlueTeamRomanResponses.html to http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/BlueTeamRomanResponses.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624174501/http://bridgeguys.com:80/Conventions/ExclusionKCBlackwood.html to http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/ExclusionKCBlackwood.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)