Hesitation Exclusion KCB

[gnasher]

The idea of bidding Exclsuion when you have the ace of the suit is hardly a new one, and it doesn't have to be as unusual as Jeffrey's example. West might choose to bid 4♠ with something like Ax KQxxxxx x Qxx, hoping to talk LHO into the wrong lead if opener had some mundane hand like xxx Axx Axx KJ10x.

[lamford]

The idea of bidding Exclusion when you have the ace of the suit is hardly a new one, and it doesn't have to be as unusual as Jeffrey's example. West might choose to bid 4♠ with something like Ax KQxxxxx x Qxx, hoping to talk LHO into the wrong lead if opener had some mundane hand like xxx Axx Axx KJ10x.

What would be the wrong lead against 5H when partner has the mundane Kx Jxxx KQx KJxx? Bidding 4S on your example hand is a recipe for disaster, but then you knew that. And we select LAs based on the methods of this partnership. We don't know exactly what they are, but the methods are surely that 4S shows a void, and asks for key cards outside spades. If West chooses to make up Exclusion, then that is not a hand-type that East should consider.

 

But far more important than whether Pass of 5H is an LA, is the issue that nobody seems to be addressing. Is it not overwhelmingly likely that the BIT was caused by South asking and West answering, rather than West thinking what to do when he thought he was off two key cards?

 

And on the other point, the glossary gives a briefer definition than the original article. Out of 20 definitions of Exclusion Blackwood I found on the net, 18 of them mentioned the void in the suit, which is the generally agreed understanding of the term. Surely, West, an expert, would have given full disclosure that it did not necessarily show a void, if that had been the case. Are you saying that you would bid Exclusion with that hand with Ax of spades, and not then tell the opponent this was a possible hand type?

 

A selection of definitions from the net:

 

A slam-related Jump bid after partner's have found a trump fit. The Jump Suit shows a void,

 

A better way to resolve this dilemma is to use EXCLUSION KEYCARD BLACKWOOD (EKB) whereby you ask partner for keycards OUTSIDE of the void suit.

 

Blackwood is typically a jump to 5 of a suit to ask about aces of keycards no counting the ace of the suit bid, presumably because the one asking is void in the suit.

 

Traditionally when you have a void and are looking for slam, bidding Blackwood - asking for aces or controls � is considered not to be the best approach

 

The concept behind this convention is to show a void while exploring for the possibility of a slam.

 

A better method is to use certain high level jumps in a new suit as both showing a void and asking for key cards at the same time.

 

Exclusion Blackwood (also known as Voidwood) is a variation on Blackwood, for use in distributional hands. When the Blackwood bidder has a void in a suit and trump suit is agreed upon, a jump to 5 of a different suit shows a void in that suit and asks for the other three aces

 

“Exclusion” Blackwood or “Voidwood” was devised so as to resolve the situation when the Blackwood-asker has a void.

 

Exclusion blackwood is not 4NT ace asking bid. Blackwood'er use his void as an ace asking bid.

 

The bid of 4 spades says partner, I have a void in spades and I want to know specifically the keycards in the other three suits.

 

It says “Tell me about your Key Cards, but don’t bother to include the A♥ in your answer, I don’t need that card”. Yes, the suit in which we leaped so majestically is the excluded suit, and the normal assumption is that the Exclusion bidder is void in that suit … either that, or he is being tricky!

 

EXCLUSION BLACKWOOD

•Void-showing, asks for key cards excluding the void suit.

 

When a player wishes to learn about controls in his/her partner's hand, yet the player's own hand contains a void, information about aces may be worthless, because the partner may have an ace in the void suit. To compensate for the void while requesting controls, the player makes a jump past 4 of agreed suit.

 

It is clear that if the agreemnent is that "Exclusion Blackwood" does not have to contain a void in the bid suit, this must be disclosed to the opponents, as the phrase "Exclusion Blackwood" on its own would otherwise convey MI.

[gnasher]

We don't know exactly what they are, but the methods are surely that 4S shows a void, and asks for key cards outside spades. If West chooses to make up exclusion, then that is not a hand-type that East should consider.

Why are they "surely" playing that 4♠ shows a void? All I can see is the term "Exclusion Keycard". In my world, "Exclusion Keycard" means "I'd like to know how many keycards you have outside [a specified suit], because I think that gives us the best chance of reaching the right contract." It may be that you interpret it as meaning "I have a void, and I'd like to know ... etc", but all that tells us is that naming a convention is rarely sufficient to define the meaning of a bid.

 

But far more important than whether Pass of 5H is an LA, is the issue that nobody seems to be addressing. Is it not overwhelmingly likely that the BIT was caused by South asking and West answering, rather than West thinking what to do when he thought he was off two key cards?

I wasn't there, so I don't know. That is one of the facts that I would expect the director to establish.

 

I know that the original post wasn't made by the director, so we don't know what the full facts were. However, for the purpose of this sort of discussion, I think it makes sense to assume that we're being asked to rule on the correct and complete facts.

 

And on the other point, the glossary gives a briefer definition than the original article. Out of 20 definitions of Exclusion Blackwood I found on the net, 18 of them mentioned the void in the suit, which is the generally agreed understanding of the term.

The Bridge World's current definition isn't merely briefer than the one you cited: it's different. It's also 30 years newer.

 

Since we're swapping definitions, how about this one, from the WBF's guide to completing the convention card, which arguably carries greater weight than Wikipedia and BridgeGuys:

"A jump above the game level in a new suit, usually at the second opportunity to bid, by either partner is an ace-asking bid. The responder disregards the ace in the suit bid and responds with the step system as in the partnership's nowmal BW scheme. Specify."

 

Again, all this tells us is that names mean different things to different people.

 

Surely, West, an expert, would have given full disclosure that it did not necessarily show a void, if that had been the case. Are you saying that you would bid Exclusion with that hand with Ax of spades, and not then tell the opponent this was a possible hand type?

I would describe it as "Asking for keycards outside spades", because that's what it is.

[lamford]

I think it makes sense to assume that we're being asked to rule on the correct and complete facts.

I agree with that. And I agree that the term Exclusion Blackwood can be interpreted as showing a void or not. I will, now, avoid the term in future and explain it as you do. I would expect most people to believe that it shows a void.

 

On the correct and complete facts, we do not have those; we are told that certain aspects are disputed. We do not know whether South or North drew attention to the hesitation, and that is material. It is not even agreed whether there was a hesitation after (any) question and answer on the West-South side of the screen. We do not know whether East-West play that Exclusion Blackwood shows a void. We do know that they differ in opinion over what pass of the double shows. We should therefore assume we are not going to get any more information - if any comes we can reconsider. Unless there is an "unmistakable" hesitation by West, we should not consider adjusting; and when you say you "don't know" you should therefore not adjust. And if we decide there is a BIT by West, we then only adjust if we regard Pass as an LA for East, and disagree with his view that, in their methods, he was "sure" his partner would have two key cards.

 

And I see no problem in this forum offering an opinion on incomplete (or disputed) facts. In my experience, disputed hesitations are about as common as accepted ones.

[blackshoe]

My guess is that when someone uses a convention he describes as "Exclusion Keycard Blackwood" he is far more likely to have a void than anything else. I'm not sure, however, that all this discussion of what the phrase means isn't irrelevant to this thread. It is generally accepted (and is enshrined in regulation in the ACBL) that naming a convention does not give adequate disclosure. So if it's a question whether there was MI, and the only disclosure was "Exclusion KCB", then the answer to the question is "yes", and we rule accordingly.

[lamford]

My guess is that when someone uses a convention he describes as "Exclusion Keycard Blackwood" he is far more likely to have a void than anything else. I'm not sure, however, that all this discussion of what the phrase means isn't irrelevant to this thread. It is generally accepted (and is enshrined in regulation in the ACBL) that naming a convention does not give adequate disclosure. So if it's a question whether there was MI, and the only disclosure was "Exclusion KCB", then the answer to the question is "yes", and we rule accordingly.

I don't think MI comes in to it here. We are deciding whether we accept East's view that he would be "sure" his partner would need two key cards for Exclusion Blackwood. If his partner can have values in spades, then people on here have constructed vaguely plausible hands for his partner. If his partner has a void spade, then they are struggling to find one consistent with the bidding. We might give a PP for the explanation however - to go with the PP for the spoken answer, and (possibly) spoken question. There might have been four of those, two on each side of the screen!

[blackshoe]

An interesting exercise, to be sure, but from a ruling view, what's the point?

[lamford]

An interesting exercise, to be sure, but from a ruling view, what's the point?

Because if we decide that East had UI, either from an "unmistakable" hesitation, or from overhearing an explanation, then we would need to decide whether bidding 6H was demonstrably suggested over passing 5H by the UI. If we cannot construct reasonable hands for the exclusion bidder, then there may be no LA to 6H. I hope that nobody would adjust if East's diamond king were the ace, for example, even if West shouted "0 or 3" at the top of his voice.

[mich-b]

If his partner can have values in spades, then people on here have constructed vaguely plausible hands for his partner. If his partner has a void spade, then they are struggling to find one consistent with the bidding.

 

Well, even if we ignore the hands where West chose to be tricky and use Exclusion without a ♠ void , cant he have Bluejak's hand with the minors reversed:

-

QTxxxx

AQJxxx

x

 

or maybe

-

Txxxxx

AQJx

Qxx

 

You think perhaps West's 4♠ was an overbid or a misbid with either of those? So what , don't your partners ever overbid? or get optimistic ? or get tempted to use a toy (EKCB) they like? luckily for West , he was able (in spite of his prior overbid) to find that 2 keycards are missing, and signoff in 5♥..Does that mean you then raise them to slam when you are off 2 keycards?

[mich-b]

Lets get the facts straightened out:

I heard about this hand from the TD who was called to the table. By the time he told me about it , he already prepared a draft appeal form (in case either side would want to appeal his ruling when he gives it) on which he wrote "BIT by West after the KeyCard response".I assume from that he confirmed there was a BIT , and that he was called by the right person (North). He also told me about the "0 or 3" explanation being spoken rather than written , which means (to me) it could have been overheard. The TD could not tell me if it was in fact overheard on the NE side of the screen.

 

So it all comes down to this:

Which of the following , do you believe (deep down in your heart) was East's thought process:

 

1. "Pd used Ex. KCB in Spades, heard I have 1 KeyCard , and realizing we do have enough KeyCards , chose to bid 5♥ now,

expecting me to raise to 6♥ if I have a nice hand.

So ok, I will raise."

 

OR

 

2. "Pd used Ex. KCB in spades , I showed I have 1 KeyCard ,He signed off - we must be missing 2 keycards,

but ...oops , I heard from the other side of the screen that he thinks I have 0.. Hmm... Probably we do have enough KeyCards...

So ok, I will raise."

 

So, which was it?

[bluejak]

Neither. There is no suggestion he was cheating. But having been affected by UI of one sort or another perhaps subconsciously that set him thinking and then he realised that it seemed right to bid six. But without the UI he would have passed.

 

:ph34r:

 

Then you are not correctly applying Law 16B1a, which states "by unmistakable hesitation" (my emphasis). Most who have commented on this thread seems to think the BIT comes from West. Facing what he thought was 0 key cards, he would be bidding 5H immediately. Therefore the BIT comes from South asking and West answering.

Of course I am correctly applying the Law. The fact that you and I disagree over the judgement of the position does not mean I am not applying the Law.

[lamford]

he wrote "BIT by West after the KeyCard response".I assume from that he confirmed there was a BIT , and that he was called by the right person (North).

The TD should have indicated on the form whether the BIT was agreed by West, and, more importantly whether there was a BIT after the question about the pass and the answer. He should also have established whether the question was written down. He should have indicated on the form who called the TD - if it was South no redress is given. Now he may have done all of this, and this is the problem with reported facts - they will be incomplete. Are you able to go back to the TD to ask him these crucial facts?

 

My contention is that the BIT was most likely to be caused by the question and answer. The whole purpose of screens is that one cannot generally tell the reason for a BIT - it might be somebody giving an explanation of the auction. There have been allegations of tempo manipulation in the past - players with nothing to think about asking inane questions. The word "unmistakable" is in the laws for a purpose. For there to be an adjustment, the BIT has to be unmistakably from West. From the other side of the screen, East would not know whether West was replying to a question or thinking. West would not think after learning (from his point of view) that his partner had 0 key cards. Why would he?

 

And all the hands which people are putting forward as possible hands for West bidding Exclusion have a major defect. East has not promised a key card. Opposite your ♠none ♥Q10xxxx ♦AQJxxx ♣x he could easily have ♠KJx ♠Jxxx ♦Kx ♣KQJx when the five level is too high. Expert players do not normally use Exclusion or even Blackwood when the minimum response gets one too high. So I totally agree with East's argument that his partner must have two key cards. And it just occurred to me that jallerton's ♠AKQx ♥Q10xxxxx ♦Q ♣Q has North, almost certainly on lead, finding a double of 4S with a singleton. That is the unbelievable part, not that East correctly evaluated the authorised auction.

 

As gnasher says, we cannot establish key facts without being there. If I were on an AC I would be finding out more about the alleged BIT. More about the writing of questions and answers - on previous hands as well, to establish what was common practice. But at the end of the day, I would find that there was no LA to 6H, because it is not conceivable that an expert player would launch into Exclusion when he may easily be off 3 key-cards, as East's auction to date has not promised a keycard, and East is extremely likely to have wasted values because of the lack of a spade raise.

[lamford]

Neither. There is no suggestion he was cheating. But having been affected by UI of one sort or another perhaps subconsciously that set him thinking and then he realised that it seemed right to bid six. But without the UI he would have passed.

This is a quite likely scenario. Let us say that there is UI, but raising to six is the only LA. He would have passed without the UI, because he would not have thought about it. Can he now bid six if, having thought about it, he decides it is the only LA? Perhaps that is a breach of Law 73?

[bluejak]

In my view, yes.

[barmar]

lamford asked two yes-no questions, which one were you saying yes to?

[Trinidad]

The middle one.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Sorry, the last one. It is a breach of Law 73C.

[campboy]

This is a quite likely scenario. Let us say that there is UI, but raising to six is the only LA. He would have passed without the UI, because he would not have thought about it. Can he now bid six if, having thought about it, he decides it is the only LA? Perhaps that is a breach of Law 73?

His deciding that bidding six is the only LA doesn't make it so. How many of his peers would pass without thinking about bidding on? I consider that selecting an alternative involves seriously considering it, though I suppose you might argue that this is not the case.

[lamford]

His deciding that bidding six is the only LA doesn't make it so. How many of his peers would pass without thinking about bidding on? I consider that selecting an alternative involves seriously considering it, though I suppose you might argue that this is not the case.

I agree it is the opinion of peers that matters, as I think I mentioned earlier on in this thread. The problem with polling expert peers is they will think about it, and are likely to reason as follows: "I did not promise a key card, therefore my expert partner is sure to have two to drive to the five level." Given that we are told he is an expert, he should be thinking about every bid, and not routinely passing because that is what one does. And if there is no "unmistakable" hesitation, we cannot adjust regardless of how poor a bid we think 6♥ is. And if he is expert, and would have bid 6♥ without the BIT, then he is not breaching 73C either.

[mich-b]

I agree it is the opinion of peers that matters, as I think I mentioned earlier on in this thread. The problem with polling expert peers is they will think about it, and are likely to reason as follows: "I did not promise a key card, therefore my expert partner is sure to have two to drive to the five level." Given that we are told he is an expert, he should be thinking about every bid, and not routinely passing because that is what one does. And if there is no "unmistakable" hesitation, we cannot adjust regardless of how poor a bid we think 6♥ is. And if he is expert, and would have bid 6♥ without the BIT, then he is not breaching 73C either.

 

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting a style in which any time a player uses Blackwood he guarantees 2 Aces? (Ok, unless partner has specifically showed one)

Can you find anywhere any reference to such a style?

 

And are you also suggesting that if you happen to hold 2 Aces when pd used Blackwood (and signed off after you showed them) you're supposed to raise if you generally like your hand?

 

(lets assume for simplicity a sequence like:

1♣ - 1♠

2♠ - 4NT

5♥ - 5♠)

[campboy]

Of course, unless there was unmistakable hesitation then there is no UI and we do nothing. However, unmistakable means unmistakable to those who were actually there, not unmistakable to a bunch of people on the internet. The TD called to the table seems to have determined that there was an unmistakable BIT by West, and there is no suggestion that this was disputed by E/W.

 

In a poll of experts I would imagine enough would pass to make it an LA. I don't know, of course, since I am not an expert. If they pass in a poll they would have passed at the table, even if the converse is not necessarily true, so we may rely on the result of a poll if it determines that pass is an LA.

[lamford]

Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting a style in which any time a player uses Blackwood he guarantees 2 Aces? (Ok, unless partner has specifically showed one)

Can you find anywhere any reference to such a style?

(lets assume for simplicity a sequence like:

1♣ - 1♠

2♠ - 4NT

5♥ - 5♠)

Pretty much every beginner book contains the adage 'don't use the convention if there is a possibility you won't like the reply' (or similar). In the original hand, if West has only one key card, there is more than a possibility of this. He is expert - we are told. Given that we have both minor-suit kings, it is inconceivable that he does not have two key cards.

[lamford]

In a poll of experts I would imagine enough would pass to make it an LA.

Then we have to poll experts; I shall try to do so.

[AlexJonson]

Then we have to poll experts; I shall try to do so.

 

I begin to wonder what you are doing in this post.

 

If the issue is lack of information (good point I thought)

then Campboys' proddings are irrelevant, and there is no point polling anyone.

[lamford]

I begin to wonder what you are doing in this post.

 

If the issue is lack of information (good point I thought)

then Campboys' proddings are irrelevant, and there is no point polling anyone.

I agree that we cannot make a ruling without asking further questions. However, we can attempt to rule on the assumption that there is UI - let us say that the response to the question was clearly overheard. The first assumption that everyone on here makes is that 5H is a signoff. We are not told that in the OP. I put this on rec.games.bridge, and there was an overwhelming majority in favour of passing 5H, but the two who argued otherwise were correct, and the others were all wrong. In my opinion. Take this erudite post, from a strong player:

 

"Thinking at Bridge is never a serious error, behaving like a robot is. I agree, however, that standard Blackwood is non consultative and it is extremely rare that you can have convincing reasons with the lower number of keycards to overrule partner.

 

However, there are good arguments why Exclusion keycard Blackwood (ERKB) should be treated differently: Partner has not just asked for key-cards: At the same time he has passed very useful information to you that he got a side suit void, which only allows you to judge how well the hands fit. It is plain wrong to claim partner is not consulted on this, when he is the only one, who can judge duplication of values. When playing Exclusion Keycard Blackwood there is almost no other convenient way of passing void information to partner. Repeated control bids of the same suit may guarantee first round control but not a void.

 

When your expert partner uses ERKB above game he has already committed the hand to the 5 level, not knowing how much duplication exists in the void suit. Partner must choose between a very limited number of options available to him trying for slam. With a void the best option by far is usually Exclusion Keycard Blackwood, even if one reply leaves in doubt whether slam is a good bet. In the current case it is almost impossible to construct hands for partner, where he might miss all your values outside the void suit in addition to 2 key cards."

 

Another post, just about the only other supporter of bidding 6H, went further:

 

"...it doesn't really seem sensible to pass 5H. What exactly are you putting partner on -- KQxxxx QJxx Qxx? I might even go so far to say that passing 5H after hearing a correct explanation from partner is illegal use of UI."

 

Why do I not post the other opinions on here? Because the majority of them were, again in my opinion, "pure nonsense". It does appeal to my sense of humour, however, that one might get a PP from campboy for bidding 6H, and a PP from the above poster for passing! If you hear an incorrect explanation from partner, your duty is to pretend that you heard a correct one, and then to bid accordingly. There is absolutely no indication that 5H is a "sign off", and ERKCB followed by an in tempo 5H over any response still consults partner.

 

Now gnasher will argue that partner has not promised a spade void. I do not think that is mainstream however; the ERKCB bidder expects his partner to believe that he as a void.

 

And I have to make this my last post on this thread, and will not reply further, sorry. Else I might be accused of hogging the crease like Alastair Cook, and attempting to break my own record for the percentage of posts from one person.