Impossible Exclusion?

[kenrexford]

I preface this by admitting that not every bid needs a definition. However, an interesting question was asked of me recently.

 

The hand we were discussing was interesting. Opener held AQJxxx-AJx-AQ10x-void, and Responder 10xxx-Kxx-Kxx-xxx. The opponents reached 6S, making seven, because Opener decided to force the auction until 6S regardless of what his partner held. My partner (a newbie) and I started a more sane auction. 1S-P-2S-P-3D. Partner should probably bid 3H, I noted, after which I can bid Serious 3NT, hear 4D, and then jump to 6S (practical).

 

We then discussed whether the grand can be reached, perhaps if Responder holds as simple as Kxxx-Kxx-KJx-xxx. I had mentioned bidding 5C after 4D, as Exclusion RKCB, which stirred the ultimate question.

 

5C as Exclusion is clearly redundant, as 4D denied a club control. So, the big Q:

 

Q: If Exclusion is made redundant because partner already denied a control in the void suit, what is a five-bid which otherwise would be Exclusion? Still Exclusion (to inform partner) or something else? Thoughts?

[awm]

Why is a five-level bid automatically exclusion? I would think that bidding 5♣ over 4♦ should be a simple cuebid. Perhaps it's likely to be shortness because of failure to bid keycard...

 

Certainly in this case (with partner already denying the ace of clubs) I would treat 5♣ as a cuebid of shortness. Partner will know to devalue ♣QJ for slam.

[cherdano]

Well exclusion is a matter of partnership agreement IMHO, I don't think it's practical to treat bids as EKCB when they sound like it.

Of course you can agree that any 5-level bid after major suit agreement is ECKB; that would be practical but bad :) (just IMO)

 

With opener's hand after 1♠-2♠, I couldn't imagine rebidding anything but 4♣ or 5♣. The main features of the hand are good trumps, good control, and club shortness, so why not let partner in on that little secret?

I am not sure whether I would prefer the latter to be a void splinter or exclusion, btw.

 

Arend

[han]

Agree with Arend.

[000002]

if he is a limit hand between 1~2HCPs,an insignificant cuebid iteration shows the strength of the focal suit,maybe side ,maybe trump.

 

if he is a limit hand with 3~4hcps elasticity,an insignificant cuebid iteration shows the upper limit.

 

if he is an infinite hand,repeat cuebid shows nothing, waiting for something only.

[Guest Jlall]

Kxxx Kxx KJx xxx doesn't seem like a 2S bid. I'm sure you have an auction in mind to find 7D opposite Kxx KTx Kxxx xxx as well though :) These things just don't matter.

[kenrexford]

Actually, it is funny that you mention it. Finding 7D opposite that hand is relatively easy. I use 3NT after a natural game try as serious for the new suit.

 

Hence, after 1S-P-2S-P-3D, Responder could bid 3NT to show a maximum with good, four-card support for the new suit. Opener can then bid 4C (artificial, asking), with Responder showing the heart King. Not too tricky, really.

 

But, that was not the question. If you actually have an agreement to play Exclusion, the core of the problem presented, and elect not to be practical, then Exclusion is occasionally redundant. In that situation, perhaps a better default makes sense. I like the idea suggested of 5C here asking for trump quality, a logical approach. It allows differentiation between three and four trumps, if insane adherence to Bergen Raises is replaced with same handling of minimum hands.

 

That might not be too important, I suppose, if too much complexity of logic confuses you.

 

As to the concept of cuebidding 4C instead of 3NT. Strange, to me. Granted, 4C should express serious slam interest itself, as you rarely make a cooperative cuebid in this auction unless you are an idiot. However, 3NT seems superior to 4C in that it allows partner to make two cuebids for you, in a sense. First, he cuebids a useful value (the diamond). Second, his bypass of 4C allows him to "cuebid" a useful value as well -- lack of any control in clubs -- by bypassing 4C. Why restrict his messages to one? How does 4C clarify the difference between xxxx-Kxx-Kxx-Kxx and Kxxx-Kxx-Kxx-xxx? 3NT allows this to be clarified, before 4NT.

[joshs]

I preface this by admitting that not every bid needs a definition.  However, an interesting question was asked of me recently.

 

The hand we were discussing was interesting.  Opener held AQJxxx-AJx-AQ10x-void, and Responder 10xxx-Kxx-Kxx-xxx.  The opponents reached 6S, making seven, because Opener decided to force the auction until 6S regardless of what his partner held.  My partner (a newbie) and I started a more sane auction.  1S-P-2S-P-3D.  Partner should probably bid 3H, I noted, after which I can bid Serious 3NT, hear 4D, and then jump to 6S (practical).

 

We then discussed whether the grand can be reached, perhaps if Responder holds as simple as Kxxx-Kxx-KJx-xxx.  I had mentioned bidding 5C after 4D, as Exclusion RKCB, which stirred the ultimate question.

 

5C as Exclusion is clearly redundant, as 4D denied a club control.  So, the big Q:

 

Q:  If Exclusion is made redundant because partner already denied a control in the void suit, what is a five-bid which otherwise would be Exclusion?  Still Exclusion (to inform partner) or something else?  Thoughts?

I have multiple comments here.

 

1. Its very, very unusual to play serious 3N after 1M-2M. Serious 3N applies when both players strength is wide-ranging (and usually only when trumps are first set at the 3 level, but its not rediculous in some other auctions if you have special agreements). In the given auction 3N is, has and will always be natural for me in your given auction.

 

2. Usually, an unusual jump to the 5 level is exclusion (I want to take charge). For instance 1S-2S-5C would be exclusion. If you have another way of showing shortage initially, you might want to play 1S-2S-3D-3H-5C as exclusion, although that interpretation is far from obvious (I would expect that its exclusion). Supposing that 1S-2S-4C was a splinter (its 5-5 slammish for me, but might be a splinter in other partnerships), if you next bid 5C you are shoing a void but NOT asking keycards. You have made a slam try with a void, and asking partner to evaluate his hand. In the auction you present, 1S-2S-3D-3H-3N(Serious 3N, which is an unusual treatment)-4D 5C would just be a cue bid, showing doubt about level (and possibly denying a heart control). Its pretty unusualy for a non-jump bid to ever be exclusion, unless you have specific agreements about that auction (like maybe texas x-fer then a new suit)

Note: in your auction:

a. 3H did not show a heart control, he just said he is still interested in game

b. in many partnerships, 3H didn't even definiteively show hearts, it just says he is still interested in game (what else can you bid with KJx xxx xx Axxxx over 3D?)

[cherdano]

As to the concept of cuebidding 4C instead of 3NT. Strange, to me. Granted, 4C should express serious slam interest itself, as you rarely make a cooperative cuebid in this auction unless you are an idiot. However, 3NT seems superior to 4C in that it allows partner to make two cuebids for you, in a sense. First, he cuebids a useful value (the diamond). Second, his bypass of 4C allows him to "cuebid" a useful value as well -- lack of any control in clubs -- by bypassing 4C. Why restrict his messages to one? How does 4C clarify the difference between xxxx-Kxx-Kxx-Kxx and Kxxx-Kxx-Kxx-xxx? 3NT allows this to be clarified, before 4NT.

You misunderstood me. I would bid 1♠-2♠-4♣, self-splinter.

 

Arend