Exclusion

[Lovera]

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.

[Cyberyeti]

We use exclusion very often at the 4 level (and occasionally at the 3 level), but I'm aware we're unusual.

 

We also use a variant where the hand being asked is not very tightly defined where there is a bid available for "in the light of you having a void in suit X, I no longer have what I've shown".

[ArtK78]

In one of my partnerships, we have more than one way to make a major suit raise. This gives us more than one way to show a splinter bid.

 

We define 1M - 4m and 1♠ - 4♥ as void showing splinters. If opener bids RKCB, it is exclusion.

 

A "normal" splinter bid with a singleton in the short suit goes through a forcing raise (not Jacoby) and then jumps in a side suit. For example, 1♥ - 2♠ (artificial game forcing raise) - 2NT (forced) - 3♠ or 4m is a game forcing splinter bid with a singleton in the bid suit.

 

 

 

[Lovera]

We use exclusion very often at the 4 level (and occasionally at the 3 level), but I'm aware we're unusual.

 

We also use a variant where the hand being asked is not very tightly defined where there is a bid available for "in the light of you having a void in suit X, I no longer have what I've shown".

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.

[Lovera]

In one of my partnerships, we have more than one way to make a major suit raise. This gives us more than one way to show a splinter bid.

 

We define 1M - 4m and 1♠ - 4♥ as void showing splinters. If opener bids RKCB, it is exclusion.

 

A "normal" splinter bid with a singleton in the short suit goes through a forcing raise (not Jacoby) and then jumps in a side suit. For example, 1♥ - 2♠ (artificial game forcing raise) - 2NT (forced) - 3♠ or 4m is a game forcing splinter bid with a singleton in the bid suit.

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.

[Cyberyeti]

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.

 

We take it even further than Art.

 

Singletons are handled through 1m-2m or 1M-2N, so 1any-3higher suit are voids as are 1any-4lower suit, and the responses are that the agreed suit at the lowest level says "my hand is no longer worth my bid" (and the next denomination up is exclusion over this), other bids are number of aces.

 

Also we play kickback, so 1♥-3♥-4♠ would ask aces, 4N would be exclusion with a void spade.

 

Example hand:

 

AKxxx, Jxxx, KJ, xx you open 1♠

 

Partner bids 4♣, you bid 4N as you're worth your opening bid if he bid 4♦, you aren't and bid 4♠

 

This is critical when partner has QJxxx, AKx, (Q10xxx void), auction ends at 4♠ on the second one, and continues 5♣-5♦-6♠ on the first.

[Lovera]

We take it even further than Art.

 

Singletons are handled through 1m-2m or 1M-2N, so 1any-3higher suit are voids as are 1any-4lower suit, and the responses are that the agreed suit at the lowest level says "my hand is no longer worth my bid" (and the next denomination up is exclusion over this), other bids are number of aces.

 

Also we play kickback, so 1♥-3♥-4♠ would ask aces, 4N would be exclusion with a void spade.

 

Example hand:

 

AKxxx, Jxxx, KJ, xx you open 1♠

 

Partner bids 4♣, you bid 4N as you're worth your opening bid if he bid 4♦, you aren't and bid 4♠

 

This is critical when partner has QJxxx, AKx, (Q10xxx void), auction ends at 4♠ on the second one, and continues 5♣-5♦-6♠ on the first.

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).

[Lovera]

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.

[nullve]

If

 

* T is the trump suit;

* L,M,H are the lowest, middle and highest suit outside T, respectively;

* 'KC' means 'number of key cards'

 

then it's often possible to play the following instead of Exclusion RKCB:

 

4T+1 = L void or no void

...4T+2 = LA

......4T+3 = even KC

.........4T+4 = TQ ask

............5T = no TQ

............[5T+1]+ = TQ

......4T+4 = odd KC and no TQ

......5T = odd KC and TQ

......[5T+1]+ = *

...4T+3 = no LA and even KC

......4T+4 = TQ ask

.........5T = no TQ

.........[5T+1]+ = TQ

...4T+4 = no LA and odd KC and no TQ

...5T = no LA and odd KC and TQ

...[5T+1]+ = *

4T+2 = M void

...4T+3 = even KC outside M

......4T+4 = TQ ask

.........5T = no TQ

.........[5T+1]+ = TQ

...4T+4 = odd KC outside M and no TQ

...5T = odd KC outside M and TQ

...[5T+1]+ = *

4T+3 = H void and even KC

...4T+4 = TQ ask

......5T = no TQ

......[5T+1]+ = TQ

4T+4 = H void and odd KC and no TQ

5T = H void and odd KC and TQ

[5T+1]+ = *

 

* like 5T, but confident that 2+ KC aren't missing

 

The point, of course, is to always be able to stop in 5T when too many key key cards are missing.

 

As an illustration: If T=♥, the structure becomes

 

4♠ = ♣ void or no void

...4N = ♣A

......5♣ = even KC

.........5♦ = ♥Q ask

............5♥ = no ♥Q

............5♠+ = ♥Q

......5♦ = odd KC and no ♥Q

......5♥ = odd KC and ♥Q

......5♠+ = *

...5♣ = no ♣A and even KC

......5♦ = ♥Q ask

.........5♥ = no ♥Q

.........5♠+ = ♥Q

...5♦ = no ♣A and odd KC and no ♥Q

...5♥ = no ♣A and odd KC and ♥Q

...5♠+ = *

4N = ♦ void

...5♣ = even KC outside ♦

......5♦ = ♥Q ask

.........5♥ = no ♥Q

.........5♠+ = ♥Q

...5♦ = odd KC outside ♦ and no ♥Q

...5♥ = odd KC outside ♠ and ♥Q

...5♠+ = *

5♣ = ♠ void and even KC

...5♦ = ♥Q ask

......5♥ = no ♥Q

......5♠+ = ♥Q

5♦ = ♠ void and odd KC and no ♥Q

5♥ = ♠ void and odd KC and ♥Q

5♠+ = *.

 

* like 5♥, but confident that 2+ KC aren't missing

[Lovera]

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).

[Lovera]

If

 

* T is the trump suit;

* L,M,H are the lowest, middle and highest suit outside T, respectively;

* 'KC' means 'number of key cards'

 

then it's often possible to play the following instead of Exclusion RKCB:

 

 

4T+1 = L void or no void

...4T+2 = LA

......4T+3 = even KC

.........4T+4 = TQ ask

............5T = no TQ

............[5T+1]+ = TQ

......4T+4 = odd KC and no TQ

......5T = odd KC and TQ

......[5T+1]+ = *

...4T+3 = no LA and even KC

......4T+4 = TQ ask

.........5T = no TQ

.........[5T+1]+ = TQ

...4T+4 = no LA and odd KC and no TQ

...5T = no LA and odd KC and TQ

...[5T+1]+ = *

4T+2 = M void

...4T+3 = even KC outside M

......4T+4 = TQ ask

.........5T = no TQ

.........[5T+1]+ = TQ

...4T+4 = odd KC outside M and no TQ

...5T = odd KC outside M and TQ

...[5T+1]+ = *

4T+3 = H void and even KC

...4T+4 = TQ ask

......5T = no TQ

......[5T+1]+ = TQ

4T+4 = H void and odd KC and no TQ

5T = H void and odd KC and TQ

[5T+1]+ = *

 

* like 5T, but confident that 2+ KC aren't missing

 

The point, of course, is to always be able to stop in 5T when too many key key cards are missing.

 

As an illustration, if T=♥, the structure becomes

 

4♠ = ♣ void or no void

...4N = ♣A

......5♣ = even KC

.........5♦ = ♥Q ask

............5♥ = no ♥Q

............5♠+ = ♥Q

......5♦ = odd KC and no ♥Q

......5♥ = odd KC and ♥Q

......5♠+ = *

...5♣ = no ♣A and even KC

......5♦ = ♥Q ask

.........5♥ = no ♥Q

.........5♠+ = ♥Q

...5♦ = no ♣A and odd KC and no ♥Q

...5♥ = no ♣A and odd KC and ♥Q

...5♠+ = *

4N = ♦ void

...5♣ = even KC outside ♦

......5♦ = ♥Q ask

.........5♥ = no ♥Q

.........5♠+ = ♥Q

...5♦ = odd KC outside ♦ and no ♥Q

...5♥ = odd KC outside ♠ and ♥Q

...5♠+ = *

5♣ = ♠ void and even KC

...5♦ = ♥Q ask

......5♥ = no ♥Q

......5♠+ = ♥Q

5♦ = ♠ void and odd KC and no ♥Q

5♥ = ♠ void and odd KC and ♥Q

5♠+ = *.

 

* like 5♥, but confident that 2+ KC aren't missing

 

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.

[Vampyr]

I assume “declaring” means bidding and has nothing to do with declarer play?

[Lovera]

I assume “declaring” means bidding and has nothing to do with declarer play?

Yes, it is so. Thanks.

[Lovera]

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.

[pescetom]

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.

 

I understand it was invented by Bobby Goldman, back in the 70s.

 

As for the rest, I play it in one partnership but so far it rarely came up.

I'm already concerned about giving up 5 level, no way would I contemplate a lower level for this.

In another agreement that I am happier with, we distinguish between voids and singleton splinters and of course RKCB and/or Control-bids take account of whatever has been established in that sense.

[Lovera]

I understand it was invented by Bobby Goldman, back in the 70s.

 

As for the rest, I play it in one partnership but so far it rarely came up.

I'm already concerned about giving up 5 level, no way would I contemplate a lower level for this.

In another agreement that I am happier with, we distinguish between voids and singleton splinters and of course RKCB and/or Control-bids take account of whatever has been established in that sense.

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 ...).

[Lovera]

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.

[pescetom]

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 ...).

 

I imagine that what was there before was what is here now, the relatively frequent need to exclude controls in a void suit.

It's not much use knowing that partner has 2 Aces when you have ♠- ♥5 ♦KQ865 ♣AKQJT86 (simultaneo nazionale of last night, if you played it).

I'm only a little younger than you, but young in bridge terms because I never took it seriously until five years ago, before that it was just another card game that I occasionally played with my parents or some friends without even knowing what a convention was. I study a bit to catch up :)

[Lovera]

I imagine that what was there before was what is here now, the relatively frequent need to exclude controls in a void suit.

It's not much use knowing that partner has 2 Aces when you have ♠- ♥5 ♦KQ865 ♣AKQJT86 (simultaneo nazionale of last night, if you played it).

I'm only a little younger than you, but young in bridge terms because I never took it seriously until five years ago, before that it was just another card game that I occasionally played with my parents or some friends without even knowing what a convention was. I study a bit to catch up :)

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.

[Lovera]

As indicated by Cyberyeti there should be some compatibility with what I am going to say. I do not believe, however, that it is difficult to identify this convention (at the time used and that I know). Let me know so that I can continue the discussion on the topic that I find interesting in a more usefull way.

[nullve]

It's not much use knowing that partner has 2 Aces when you have ♠- ♥5 ♦KQ865 ♣AKQJT86

You know that partner holds at least one red ace and that you can therefore bid slam with confidence. But you also know that he's (extremly?) unlikely to hold both red aces, so you should be content with small slam under normal circumstances.

[pescetom]

You know that partner holds at least one red ace and that you can therefore bid slam with confidence. But you also know that he's (extremly?) unlikely to hold both red aces, so you should be content with small slam under normal circumstances.

 

All things being equal, the likeliness of holding both red aces would be 1 in 3. But as it happened our opponents interfered resolutely in spades, and we needed a top to win, so I went for the grand. Of course after a spades lead the dummy came down ♠A6 ♥AQ432 ♦T732 ♣52. The ♥Q held and RHO obligingly covered ♦ with his A, leaving me to cash KQ for one down - which turned out to be almost average as the small slam also went down, I imagine with RHO more wary in playing from ♦AJ94. The top score turned out to be 3NT, with nobody making the overtrick the computer says they should.

[Lovera]

Here is the convention I requested (elaborated by the spouses William S. and Gertrude Smith) as was given in the book "Bridge" (by F. Bazzanti and C. Vannutelli publisher Ulrico Hoepli on Milan 1946): "THE SMITH CONVENTION FOR THE SLAM" It consists of two distinct parts, each of which must be adopted in different situations. While the former is based on the strength of honors, the latter has as its premise the use about shape and is far more interesting than the other. In both parts of the Smith convention it is not the honors which are indicated, but the controls: for these we mean the Aces and the Kings. Each Ace has the value of 1 control and each King of the 1/2 Control; in all the deck there are a total of 6 controls. a) For the use of the Smith Convention of slam due to honors it is necessary that the following assumptions occur: a) the two partners have already agreed on the suit that will represent the final contract of trustee, whatever the number of tricks the contract itself; b) be sure to be able to maintain a contract enter the five level in any case. Having verified the two aforementioned prerequisites, the player who sees the possibility of reaching a slam contract and has at least 2 1/2 controls in hand, declares 4 NT. The partner to this statement purely interrogative (not to be confused with the 4NT Culbertson which are also interrogative, but also informative), must indicate the number of its controls by bidding: 5 ♣: with c. 1/-;(..)5♠ with controls 2 1/2 (1Ace and 3 Kings); 5NT the same (2Aces and 1 King); (..) 6♦: with controls 3 1/2. The final decision rests with the player who initiated the conventional declaration with 4NT.b) The Smith convention of slam for distribution allows the declaration of a slam which otherwise would be difficult to arrive, when there is an irregular distribution of the hand; the starting for the slam is given by one of the following situations: a) overcall of a suit bidded by the opponents (this bid retains its meaning to have the first round stop to that suit ); b) to jump to another suit first not bidded, when the suit of the final bidding has already been chosen, c) bidding of a previously unstated suit, when the level of the game has already been reached. Even these conventional calls are interrogative: they ask the partner to indicate the number of controlls, excluding those held in the suit bidded by the player who has the bidded any of the three conventional calls. The answer must be given by raising the bidding of a degree or level for every 1/2 control held, excluding, it is repeated, any control possessed to the suit of the conventional bidding."

[Lovera]

I have wanted to indicate the whole convention (better known as 4NT Smith for the search for controls and long since no longer used) for a complete information about it but the part that interests us is, of course, the second (when in the hand of the player who starts the convention there is the presence of a void) highlighting that there was already a convention (from which I think it was resumed then the "Exclusion") acting at the fourth level. This fact is, therefore, to be considered if you want to officially propose a new convention also considering that someone considers it more convenient for the partnership to realize something on their own. I hope something can be done in this regard.

[Lovera]

Now that I have indicated in detail the two parts of the "Smith" convention (the second part of strictly our interest and to consider anyhow as for referring), it is necessary some further your comment post in this regard, in order to proceed to a discussion about, for a topic that I think it should be of common interest.