Sequence definition

[Flem72]

In an auction of the form

 

1m-(3Y)-3N-(P)

?

 

where Y>X, and assuming adequate Minorwood/Redwood agreements (another sticky wicket), shouldn't 4Y be Exclusion?

 

EDIT: yes, m = X, my bad

Edited February 14, 2012 by Flem72

[gszes]

i am unsure what you mean by y>x did you perchance mean

y>m??

 

here y>m

 

1c 3s 3n p

4s

 

here y<m

 

1h 3c 3n p

4c

 

Yet both sequences are excellent candidates for exclusion if your

partnership feels there is no better use for them. You give up

things to use others for ex

 

would I prefer 1c 3s 3n p 4s to be exclusion or showing this type

of hand.

 

void

KQxx

KQxx

AKQxx

 

how about a bit weaker?

 

after 1h 3c 3n p 4c

 

KQxx

AQJxx

KQxx

void

 

these are much more common than hands where opener can suddenly take

control with exclusion (and most of those will be grand slam

hunting where normal exclusion (at 5 level) is fine.

[kenrexford]

In competition, where the opponents have announced a suit, IMO a good default is for Kickback+1 to be Exclusion in their suit. Save space for when you need it.

 

Thus, if for example Opener's suit is clubs, 4♦ might be RKCB but 4♥ Exclusion, regardless of what suit the opponents have shown.