Lovera

The use of this convention has been addressed at other times also with critical aspects about this regard. In the meantime, I want to give some suggestions for those who wish to search: you can insert the term "Jacoby" (having 4 pages in reply) in the search box of the home .If you go to "Non-Natural System Discussion (Frequency of slam after Jacoby 2NT)(1)" you should find a topic that reports both the Pavliceck site and the Bridgewinners site where this convention has been discussed in detail(3) even in a complex way (something you should try to avoid in order not to transform your system into tendly to be artificial), you can also directly visit A. Gumperz in "http://Limited bidding :Reenginnering Jacoby 2NT". This convention is also obviously present in the "Conventions" section in bridgeguys.com being used in conjunction with the limitative bids. Another good site to see (and you can access it from my topic "Raising the suit of opponent" in GBD on page 3) is that of the pattayabridge club.com always through the "Jacoby 2NT" home / convention(2) where examples of hands are given to be declared by combining them with the Swiss keycard and splinters. (1):https://www.bridgeba...__1#entry970060 (2):https://www.pattayab...m/convindex.htm (3)BridgeWinners:http://bridgewinners...iew/jacoby-2nt/

I found this hand (remembering something like that) in the beautiful book by José Le Dentu "Bridge dei Campioni" in the part dedicated to "The psychological weapon": "4. The force of despair It was at that time of the whist that an unknown champion, to get out of a desperate situation, discovered a remarkable cunning. Since then, it has always been used successfully, especially by Goren and we can say that "there is no adversary in the world that can avoid falling into the trap", as this deal [in post #1] shows. The bidding reported is a slightly different: S 1 ♣ W (p) N 1 ♦ E (X), p! - (1 ♥) - p- (2 ♠), 3 ♠ - (p) -4 ♦ - (p), 4NT [blw] !! - (p) -5 ♦ [1Ace] - (p), 6 ♣ !!! (...) Seeing the opening lead of ♠ 4, South realized, in a flash, that West would ruff on the second round of ♠ because 2 was on dummy and 3 in his hand, with an extraordinary cold blood and without losing a second, as the minimum hesitation would have been fatal, "he rejects the King of Spades on the Ace" (...) In fact, if East does not play ♠, there is no defense and, when "he decides to fight back with the King of Hearts", S takes with the Ace and run all trumps (keeping all the diamonds to the dummy), while the situation for E gets worse from second to second. Consequently with himself, the opponent discards his last ♠ on the last atout, but the ♠ 3 turned winner, will make him suffer the anguish of a second squeeze and will procure S the second hold he missed." [From "Bridge A' La Une " by J. Le Dentu pages 362-363].(Lovera)

Infact l've said "it'd be" because seems the same situation as in #53 but theare we had heart as trump and 4♠ was upper game then when is showed this overcalling it is a previous forcing bid.

Conventionnaly it'd be Exclusion because the overcalling is not with a jump but had to be reached although almost the fourth level.

Phenomenal and generous concert by the Dire Straits in Nimes, France. Even if it's 1992 it's unbelievable what Mark Knopfler can do and it's beautiful both to see and to hear with high musical quality and exceptional fusion of the whole group:

If you go to the bridgeguys.com site where Goldman's "Exclusion Keycard Blackwood" is presented, you will find this: "Notes: The convention of Exclusion Keycard Blackwood is also referred to as Voidwood. Notes: The photograph of Mr. Robert (Bobby) Goldman is from the year 1982.  Basic Concept In Exclusion Keycard Blackwood there are only four Keycards. Void suit is not counted. Therefore, only the other 3 Aces and the King of the trump suit count as the four Keycards. This conventional method is initiated: 1.After establishing the trump suit.2.By a jump bid higher than the game level in an unbid suit or3.In a suit bid by the opponents. The suit of the jump bid is then excluded by partner from any response bids. The answer to the Keycard Asking is completed in the following way: 1st Step: Shows 0 Keycards.2nd Step: Shows 1 Keycard.3rd Step: Shows 2 Keycards.4th Step: Shows 3 Keycards." This presentation of the three application points reinforces my belief that the current convention has resumed that part of Smith regarding hands with special distribution (= with a missing suit). Therefore my indication in post #53 of the publication in the specialized journal "The Bridge World" was aimed at having the indications or considerations of the bidding problems that could have been presented and which can be taken taking into account the current bidding / competitive development without taking into account the response steps that have been changed with the keycards whose indication, if it were possible to have from that source or a similar one, would be useful to continue the discussion, considering more detailed the three conditions of the previous convention (for example in the case c where it was already reached the game level is also included the 3 NT bid).

It follows, therefore, that when this overcalling (i.e.as in post #63) of a defender's suit is preceded by a forcing jump bidded by the same player who has the void or by his partner, this bidding that is brought to game level must therefore be interpreted like EKB.

This overcalling of the opponent's suit that is carried out in the second round and after an FG by the opener partner always maintains the meaning of having no losers in the bidded suit (that in fact is a void) and can also be read as a splinter bid....who query at the same time.

Another situation in a contested (or competitive) bidding is also: S1♣-W(1♦)-N1♠-E(p),3♠-(p)-4♦(=N query for keycards exculding Diamond suit with spade as trump after jump raise) referring its at the case a) as overcalling of the suit of an opponent.

For what has been said, indicating the three application conditions, it follows that: the Exclusion bidding is executed as a jump when the partner's bid has not reached game while it is at level in the other two cases. It is important to highlight the concept of "new suit" as a suit never before bidded by the player who has the void that means that between the couple will be bidded at most three suits that allow to start EKB.

The three application rules can be transferred both to the Exclusion Blackwood which only questions the Axes as well as the EKB where it is also considered the King of the trump suit.The requirement for the controls, if evaluated according to the scale A=8-4-2-1=J, amount to 20 and that can be lightened, remaining on the same total, if two Queens are accompanied by A / K. With a lower total of 16-18 it is necessary to be an opener's partner. As for the score, around 30 points it is necessary that the partner has something more than promised by his statement in response to be more likely to get to slam while with 33 / + you can easily even be there the grand slam.

Well, I'm glad to see that someone has finally expressed. About for the jump in the second round of bidding turn, this situation is the most frequent but not the only one, as already mentioned, given that there are also other possibilities and I agree with it. Regarding the direct response EKB carried out in the first bidding turn as reported by the Canadian website is a suggestion (..if you do not play "flower bids") to be taken into consideration (while if you instead do them ..) even if the answers of interdiction somewhere must also find place.

Edmontonbridge.ca talks about this argoument and way and how to use Exclusion Blackwood at the fourth level:http://www.edmontonb...204%20level.htm

Interesting Youtube video showing the application of the case a) - the overcalling of the suit of a defender - after that the bidding was ended in 3 NT by N:https://youtu.be/Gj63sE3Re0E

Have you all a nice 2019 watching Bari by night before of the day after:

Currently only seven BBF have intervened while I left and I hope that we can open a dialogue also critical or that would put some doubt to which, in the rest of the speech, we could give resolution or better to have confirmation or support on how much, with a wealth of information officers as I usually do in these cases, I try to further develop and usefully that would be the link of the application guide conditions of the previous Smith convention to the most recent Exclusion elaborated by Goldman. This convention, however, suffers from the fact of acting at a high level, compressing into the narrow declarative space the queries probably having to compare with the splinters and the extensive use of kickbacks, which can instead be limited as also indicated by Kantar. Having also found another Italian site that speaks I provide below the translation into English:exclusion blackwood EXCLUSION BLACKWOOD You have a nice hand with a vacuum, and you have ascertained fit in a major with the hand of your partner. Do you ask for the boards? And what do you do with the ace in the color of your vacuum? Of course it can always be useful but it is not INDISPENSABLE to declare the slam, what you need to know is the number of useful axes, excluding the one corresponding to your vacuum. Example, you have: ♠ .K Q J 4 2 - ♥ .A Q J 10 9 - ♦ .-- - ♣ .A 3 2. and after your opening of 1 ♠ the partner declares 1SA and then supports you to ♥ after your jump to 3 ♥, what do you say? N:1 ♠ 1NT, 3 ♥ 4 ♥? south may have: 1 → ♠ .A 8 - ♥ .8 7 6 2 - ♦ .Q 10 9 8 7 - ♣ .K 2.or: 2 → ♠ .8 7 - ♥ .8 7 6 2 - ♦ .A Q 9 8 7 - ♣ .K 2. and with the hand 1 the slam is on the table while with the 2 go down because you lose a grip to ♠ and the K ♥ (out of impasse). How to solve the problem: ==> using the EXCLUSION BLACKWOOD, designed by Amalia Kearse and described in her "Bridge Conventions Complete", modernly reviewed by several players, (Erik Kokish). The convention is simple: with a proven fit, A JUMP[that here there is not] TO LEVEL 5 in one suit asks for the number of axes (Key Cards) EXCLUDING THE CARDS OF THE DECLARED SUIT The answers are stepped (aces = Key Card): 1st step0 useful axes2th step1 useful axes3th step2 useful axes4th step3 useful axes and in the example above, the declaration of the north with the exclusion would be continued with 5 ♦, tell me how many Key Cards you have excluded ♦, so how many aces you have between these four: A ♠ - K ♠ - A ♥ - A ♣. N: 1♠ 1NT ,3 ♥ 4 ♥, 5 ♦ This declaration is used "generally" when the void is in a minor color, if you have a vacuum at ♠ ... it is hard.This is the link:https://sites.google...usion-blackwood (interesting, take a look at the site).

For further information, I would like to point out that Smith is an official convention adopted at the time by Ely Culbertson in his system and presented in his magazine The Bridge World in n. 5 of October 1940 (David Price's The Smith Slam Convention) and in n. 16 of February 1941 (More Smith Slam Hands by R. Gray). Despite having a different response scale and acting in a declarative bridgistic context different from the current one, which obviously requires an update, the three application guidelines maintain a usefulness that must necessarily be considered in Exclusion and its application is compatible with all the other biddings investigative research for the slam. The use at the fourth level as indicated facilitates its application and also the additional queries, since the use at the fifth level is limited for the resolution of the few cases of ambiguity.

Many wishes to everyone in BBO listening to The Mavericks:

Another site that talks about Exclusion is : http://www.bridgebum...n_blackwood.php

Anyhow may you read this topic in BBO support forum pag. 4 and indications that i suggested:https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76673-how-can-i-search-for-threads-older-than-one-year/ to combine with "Watch Topic" to have notifications (see at the top of this page i.e.).

I start again to speak in this topic of the Exclusion at the fourth level always advocating a free discussion that should be useful for everyones. The indications given with the Kantar pdf in #41 illustrate various situations (with agreement, without agreement and in the last six hands how the EKB is combined with the use of the splinter bid) but all the 18th chapter satisfies only the condition b) from the conv . Smith that I think has given the input for the Exclusion, conditions that must be considered useful and highly compatible with the current one and that moreover are the only ones indicated around since there are not many in the convention at the fifth level. Therefore also with Kantar the case a) is not treated, that is the overcalling of the suit of the opponents always at the fourth level that would be Exclusion and that I do not see in a more general way on other hands considered / discussed. I therefore renew the invitation to greater participation on this topic highlighted by me, thanks.

This hand seems like that one in Kantar's pdf (see my topic "Exclusion" in GBD) that i report:"EKB AFTER THREE LEVEL NON-AGREEMENT After three level non-agreement, a jump to the five level in the void suit is EKB. You really have to have the goods to use EKB in these sequences, particularly if the suit has not been rebid. A partnership could live beautifully without this one... but there is always that one hand... You hold: S. - H. AJxx D. AQx C. KQxxxx [in this topic H turns in D, D in C, C in H changing the J in Q too] Opener (you) Responder 1C....................1D 1H....................3D ? If you want to make an make an exclusion ask in spades, buckle up because you have to go to 5S; 4S is a splinter jump. If partner responds 5NT "0"!) sign off in 6D and hope the diamond finesse works! If partner responds 6C ("1), sign off in 6D. If partner responds 6D ("2"), the DK and the CA, bid the grand." But you can read one page later in The Bottom Line that for an opener that has reverse or jump shifted are all exempeted from splintering than follows up that after three or four level agreement jumps are EKB.(Lovera)

Do you mean that you want to read also topics older than an year ?

What's happening if 3♦ is inserted in box of GIB bidding (Michaels is used by GIB)?

Very nice and smart presentation usefull for subsequent other studies about hand, shape and biddings and play of the hand (by players with high profile). I've watched something of that about scores in English clubs (such at Deva Club when i searching Peter Hall) and strongly suggest at BBO to adopt it.(Lovera)