Lovera

Infact and this is why this convention is useful. Now I can not pretend that you know what was bidded at the time of Culbertson because we have to go back to that time to find something that comes close to the "Exclusion" working with the same mechanism. I am amazed to see that at least among the American players and those of my age did not understand that I am talking, about a known and applied slam investigative convention and then, at that time, there were not many that were used. Let's see if now that I have given some further indication there are people who want to intervene.

What I am trying to suggest is that there is already something similar and that, I believe, the most experienced players could have among their bridge knowledge. However, the topic I am dealing with is new in its genre and it does not seem to have been dealt with previously and, therefore, should raise at least curiosity and perhaps greater participation. Therefore, I renew the invitation to freely express our opinion on what has been discussed so far.

For as said in post #1 let me think that for a double squeeze the unilaterals it being devided makes that W has club control and E heart control but for it works needs to rettify the count in club suit. Now if W returns club for A you can get at 11th tricks leading winner in heart and spade for the three card ending as usually otherwise if W not is returning in club suit you can play a reciprocal squeeze rescouting all diamonds and where at the ending the club A and Q heart squeeze "reciprocally" each opp at the time.

Okay, but what I'm asking is that if it's true that the "Exclusion" was invented by Goldman in the '70s, what was there before to make him then develop the convention as it is now? I do not know your age but I think you have to go back in time (and if you are young ...).

Therefore, lacking, at least at present, at the moment indications on studies or official proposals I have to consider this problem solved, on its own account, more on a partnership level. So I would therefore pass to the request of point 3) regarding the "genesis" request, i.e. from where the idea was taken which then led to formulate the "Exclusion" as we know and apply it. I believe that we can look for something similar, even going, without reserve, back in time. Let me know also with some simple indication, thanks.

Yes, it is so. Thanks.

Apart from the fact that this way of declaring can have its merits but I think it can be difficult to handle without the possibility of having a close-knit partner who knows all the development while, from my point of view, I always try to combine things in so that you can play in a more natural way is also logical, therefore, with an occasional partner, the discourse that i am on going to explain provides for the application, among other things, of the "Exclusion" at the fourth level for indication of the void.Anyway thanks for the indication.

Regarding the use of different "scales" in the answers I noticed that this also happens with regard to Minorwood which, moreover, I do not see much practiced and, in my opinion, it is a real shame as we would be below the level of play and so we will give up many useful indications. I would not like even in this case to be this "use" of deterrent for the convention. Let me know, if you know of it, some official or already agreed study / proposal about the possibility of bringing "Exclusion" to the fourth level (as indicated in my point 2).

I believe that the limitation of the "Exclusion" must be sought in the combination of these elements: 1) high declarative level with excessive consumption of space with equally relative restricted space for the answers; 2) rarity of use due to its particularity in distribution (= presence of a void); 3) different uses of "scales" for answers (which can lead to some declarative problem); 4) exhaustion of the slam investigation at a lower level.

Anything of it (implicating the bidding). It being that answer at Rkc are already ruled (when the hand has a void) is turned by opener (or strong hand) that has to shows (eventually) its hand (in a particolar way).

This one is a little far by my idea (that subsequently i'll explain). Fourthemore i don't like much the "splinter" bid that can be ambiguos for me.

It could be interesting, not just for me but on a more general level of idea to be used by other people, to have some of your declarative examples and possibly even showing both hands. From what you have said I think that the high level (= fifth level) can bring some problems if it is even used to the third.

I put this topic in GBD to verify the goodness of my idea about the contemporary use and then to agree(=to rule) for the partnership of investigative slam statements. Initially I ask if about the "Exclusion" convention that takes place on the fifth level : 1) have been highlighted (due to the declarative height), 2) if the answer to 1) should be affirmative if there is already some proposal in bringing this convention at the fourth level and 3) if anyone of you knows the "genesis" of this convention (I have my own conviction that I can possibly explain at a later time). Your thought is welcome, thank you.

When you indicated this hand as FSF you know that probably can not have the 3NT answer (except if W has QJx) because partner not have to lie about stopper, than you try to have informations about ♠/♣ suits (not being interested in ♥). Instead if this hand is bidded as reverse there is not that limitation (and for this one raises an interesting point of bidding).

But you can use "Delete" function on the left of "Edit" eliminating (also this one where i've replied) the multiple posts.

Although this hand is more for revere answer by E (descriptive also for points - almost 14 - and shape - with contiguos suits the first is longer) than for FSF where you can have on diamond suit fewer cards.

And just for do not bypass 3NT (also for points) that the first bidding leaved the possibility of a 5th card (yes subsequently confirmed by 2♥) but now this (lacking ) information is utilized just with this aim.

If we watch at bidding as is explained by opener 1♠=4/+ spades than in FSF and (also "for exclusion") W has yet to space to confirm the subsequent 2♥ with the answer of 3♠(=5th card). With the first answer of 2♣ was announced an hand for "good 9 points" and with 3♦ bid partner can have a 5-4 in club with QJxxx and QJ10x in diamond suits almost and a King able to get in 3NT.

Although it can be recognize at single dummy as squeeze position:(Lovera)

I use Play Anonymously to try bridge solutions for example for the game or for bidding not having the need to "improve" as for a Novice but to check out some of my ideas before using it, if it have succesfull, at the game table. The other day I had a hand (for which I made a screenshot) that I wanted to replay after the end (6 ♥xE + 1 by GIB) also to review which IMPs were then attributed to different scores. Replay an already played hand is possible and I have already done so once replaying the hand in the same way to check if the score changed. To do this you must use "Redeal" repeatedly and probably returning to the same situation of vulnerability (after doing the rounds of the same). So I wanted to know what the conditions were in order to obtain this possibility of repetition ( i.e. how many times do we have to act on "Redeal"?), avoiding attempts to empty with a relative loss of time.(Lovera)

I don't think so because i have leaved the bids choising of everyone. I think that those one can also to be considered as a mix between system used and style bidding at table (conservative or aggressive). Infact in any case the bid resulting ends in game (instead to realize the slam). About 2♥ bid instead of 3♥ having a 7th with AK seems to me it more descriptive and informative for partner helping the subsequent high bid for sac by N. It is usefull to enter in the right (but is not always easy to do) contested action because is productive for a positive score.

The slam for E-W is so cold that many people will realize it +1 trick and if 7♥ sac will be bidded is much more probable by N (that can not think ♣ K stiff in S hand) to prevent/push to grand that can be realized if 1-4-5-3 and weakness in N is read (otherwise finessing K is one down) and, than, it being that as card lie the two hands have 9 tricks only for 1 off (3 down vs little slam at this vulnerability) as previously considered at IMPs can be it a positive score yet.

About cue-bid sequence above indicated and there uninterferred two questions: 1) what do you bid if in diamond suit you have KQ (that works for slam whilest Kx not) ? 2) what if S overcall 5♥ after 5♣ by E ?

The cue in heart suit will have the probable 5♥ bid by N allowing at E to show its powerfull (and unbalanced) hand with a "forcing pass" so that partner can better to define the "range of action" and with AK ♦ bidding slam for W-E line: p-(p)-1♠-(3♥), 4♥-(5♥)-p(=FP)-(p), 6♠.

Ah, i see. Infact(=Swiss Team) i was thinking if was the case to buy a smoking. :rolleyes: