Exclusion

[Lovera]

I start again to speak in this topic of the Exclusion at the fourth level always advocating a free discussion that should be useful for everyones. The indications given with the Kantar pdf in #41 illustrate various situations (with agreement, without agreement and in the last six hands how the EKB is combined with the use of the splinter bid) but all the 18th chapter satisfies only the condition b) from the conv . Smith that I think has given the input for the Exclusion, conditions that must be considered useful and highly compatible with the current one and that moreover are the only ones indicated around since there are not many in the convention at the fifth level. Therefore also with Kantar the case a) is not treated, that is the overcalling of the suit of the opponents always at the fourth level that would be Exclusion and that I do not see in a more general way on other hands considered / discussed. I therefore renew the invitation to greater participation on this topic highlighted by me, thanks.

[Lovera]

Another site that talks about Exclusion is :

http://www.bridgebum...n_blackwood.php

[Lovera]

For further information, I would like to point out that Smith is an official convention adopted at the time by Ely Culbertson in his system and presented in his magazine The Bridge World in n. 5 of October 1940 (David Price's The Smith Slam Convention) and in n. 16 of February 1941 (More Smith Slam Hands by R. Gray). Despite having a different response scale and acting in a declarative bridgistic context different from the current one, which obviously requires an update, the three application guidelines maintain a usefulness that must necessarily be considered in Exclusion and its application is compatible with all the other biddings investigative research for the slam. The use at the fourth level as indicated facilitates its application and also the additional queries, since the use at the fifth level is limited for the resolution of the few cases of ambiguity.

[Lovera]

Currently only seven BBF have intervened while I left and I hope that we can open a dialogue also critical or that would put some doubt to which, in the rest of the speech, we could give resolution or better to have confirmation or support on how much, with a wealth of information officers as I usually do in these cases, I try to further develop and usefully that would be the link of the application guide conditions of the previous Smith convention to the most recent Exclusion elaborated by Goldman. This convention, however, suffers from the fact of acting at a high level, compressing into the narrow declarative space the queries probably having to compare with the splinters and the extensive use of kickbacks, which can instead be limited as also indicated by Kantar. Having also found another Italian site that speaks I provide below the translation into English:exclusion blackwood

 

 

 

 

 

EXCLUSION BLACKWOOD

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have a nice hand with a vacuum, and you have ascertained fit in a major with the hand of your partner.

 

Do you ask for the boards?

 

And what do you do with the ace in the color of your vacuum? Of course it can always be useful but it is not INDISPENSABLE to declare the slam, what you need to know is the number of useful axes, excluding the one corresponding to your vacuum.

 

 

Example, you have: ♠ .K Q J 4 2 - ♥ .A Q J 10 9 - ♦ .-- - ♣ .A 3 2.

 

and after your opening of 1 ♠ the partner declares 1SA and then supports you to ♥ after your jump to 3 ♥, what do you say?

 

 

 

N:1 ♠ 1NT, 3 ♥ 4 ♥?

 

 

 

 

south may have: 1 → ♠ .A 8 - ♥ .8 7 6 2 - ♦ .Q 10 9 8 7 - ♣ .K 2.or: 2 → ♠ .8 7 - ♥ .8 7 6 2 - ♦ .A Q 9 8 7 - ♣ .K 2.

 

 

and with the hand 1 the slam is on the table while with the 2 go down because you lose a grip to ♠ and the K ♥ (out of impasse).

 

 

How to solve the problem: ==> using the EXCLUSION BLACKWOOD, designed by Amalia Kearse and described in her "Bridge Conventions Complete", modernly reviewed by several players, (Erik Kokish).

The convention is simple: with a proven fit, A JUMP[that here there is not] TO LEVEL 5 in one suit asks for the number of axes (Key Cards) EXCLUDING THE CARDS OF THE DECLARED SUIT

The answers are stepped (aces = Key Card):

 

1st step0 useful axes2th step1 useful axes3th step2 useful axes4th step3 useful axes

 

 

and in the example above, the declaration of the north with the exclusion would be continued with 5 ♦, tell me how many Key Cards you have excluded ♦, so how many aces you have between these four: A ♠ - K ♠ - A ♥ - A ♣.

 

N: 1♠ 1NT ,3 ♥ 4 ♥, 5 ♦

 

 

 

This declaration is used "generally" when the void is in a minor color, if you have a vacuum at ♠ ... it is hard.This is the link:https://sites.google...usion-blackwood (interesting, take a look at the site).

[Lovera]

Interesting Youtube video showing the application of the case a) - the overcalling of the suit of a defender - after that the bidding was ended in 3 NT by N:https://youtu.be/Gj63sE3Re0E

[Lovera]

Edmontonbridge.ca talks about this argoument and way and how to use Exclusion Blackwood at the fourth level:http://www.edmontonb...204%20level.htm

[pescetom]

Edmontonbridge.ca talks about this argoument and way and how to use Exclusion Blackwood at the fourth level:http://www.edmontonb...204%20level.htm

 

I'm quite happy to play the first two examples as EKCB:

1♠ - 2♣; 4♦

1♦ - 1♥; 2♦ - 4♠

 

I am not happy to play the third as EKCB as I do not consider splinters or weak-3 jumps "extinct":

1♠ - 4♣

[nullve]

N: 1♠ 1NT ,3 ♥ 4 ♥, 5 ♦

5♦ is a gross overbid on ♠KQJ42 ♥AQJT9 ♦--- ♣A32.

 

This declaration is used "generally" when the void is in a minor color, if you have a vacuum at ♠ ... it is hard.

Using my gadget instead of Exclusion:

 

4♠ = club void or no void

4N = diamond void

5♣ = spade void and an even number of key cards

...5♦ = trump queen ask

......5♥ = denies the trump queen

......other = promises the trump queen

5♦ = spade void and an odd number of key cards, but not the trump queen

5♥ = apade void, an odd number of key cards and the trump queen

 

It's much harder to handle voids if they can only be shown by bidding the void suits.

[Lovera]

I'm quite happy to play the first two examples as EKCB:

1♠ - 2♣; 4♦

1♦ - 1♥; 2♦ - 4♠

 

I am not happy to play the third as EKCB as I do not consider splinters or weak-3 jumps "extinct":

1♠ - 4♣

 

Well, I'm glad to see that someone has finally expressed. About for the jump in the second round of bidding turn, this situation is the most frequent but not the only one, as already mentioned, given that there are also other possibilities and I agree with it. Regarding the direct response EKB carried out in the first bidding turn as reported by the Canadian website is a suggestion (..if you do not play "flower bids") to be taken into consideration (while if you instead do them ..) even if the answers of interdiction somewhere must also find place.

[Lovera]

The three application rules can be transferred both to the Exclusion Blackwood which only questions the Axes as well as the EKB where it is also considered the King of the trump suit.The requirement for the controls, if evaluated according to the scale A=8-4-2-1=J, amount to 20 and that can be lightened, remaining on the same total, if two Queens are accompanied by A / K. With a lower total of 16-18 it is necessary to be an opener's partner. As for the score, around 30 points it is necessary that the partner has something more than promised by his statement in response to be more likely to get to slam while with 33 / + you can easily even be there the grand slam.

[zenbiddist]

I have a few simple thoughts on Exclusion which might be relevant to your query:

 

Exclusion responses

A common treatment: 0, 1, 1+queen, 2, 2+queen, etc

 

This gets you excessively high sometimes, and therefore you can't afford to use it, undermining the benefit of the convention. Another issue with this type of response structure is that it wastes a lot of space on the 0 and 1 steps when the answer is known to be higher (i.e. from a 2♣ opener).

 

I prefer just to play simple Roman Keycard style responses to Exclusion for this reason.

 

Lower void-showing bids

The neatest fix, which doesn't require extensive agreements, is to prioritise void-showing in cue-bidding auctions. Krzysztof Martens' slam bidding book explains this very clearly. In short, if you control bid a suit and then bid it again, you have a void, and the priority of showing it overrides other control bids.

 

When is it Exclusion?

The other issue that comes up frequently in new partnerships is confusion over when Exclusion applies. In a fresh partnership, I like the simple rule that jumps to game are to play.

Another auction that I have seen create some confusion is a non-jump to 5-bananas in a competitive auction. Example:

[hv=pc=n&s=sA2haqJ87dcak9753&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp1h4d5d]133|200[/hv]

 

But what would you do with this hand?

[hv=pc=n&s=s32haqJ7dAcakJ875&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp1h4d5d]133|200[/hv]

 

What are the continuations?

I've seen very good pairs miss grand slams because they haven't discussed the follow-up bids. There are probably optimal methods I haven't encountered, but for simplicity I play the same as RKC:

1st non-trump step = Queen ask (unless queen known)

2nd non-trump step = specific king ask

Last train = generic try

Other bids inbetween (rare that they exist) = 3rd round control ask

[Lovera]

For what has been said, indicating the three application conditions, it follows that: the Exclusion bidding is executed as a jump when the partner's bid has not reached game while it is at level in the other two cases. It is important to highlight the concept of "new suit" as a suit never before bidded by the player who has the void that means that between the couple will be bidded at most three suits that allow to start EKB.

[Lovera]

Another situation in a contested (or competitive) bidding is also: S1♣-W(1♦)-N1♠-E(p),3♠-(p)-4♦(=N query for keycards exculding Diamond suit with spade as trump after jump raise) referring its at the case a) as overcalling of the suit of an opponent.

[msjennifer]

(Sir.,to simplify things we consider an unnecessary jump in a new suit as an exclusion Blackwood.(only where it shall not be confused as a splinter bid). In fact ,that is why in Modern Precision the opener never makes a splinter bid .

[Lovera]

This overcalling of the opponent's suit that is carried out in the second round and after an FG by the opener partner always maintains the meaning of having no losers in the bidded suit (that in fact is a void) and can also be read as a splinter bid....who query at the same time.

[pescetom]

(Sir.,to simplify things we consider an unnecessary jump in a new suit as an exclusion Blackwood.(only where it shall not be confused as a splinter bid). In fact ,that is why in Modern Precision the opener never makes a splinter bid .

 

So you're saying that you play 1♣ - 1♠; 3♦ as Exclusion rather than a splinter?

What does 1♣ - 1♠; 4♦ mean?

[Lovera]

It follows, therefore, that when this overcalling (i.e.as in post #63) of a defender's suit is preceded by a forcing jump bidded by the same player who has the void or by his partner, this bidding that is brought to game level must therefore be interpreted like EKB.

[Lovera]

If you go to the bridgeguys.com site where Goldman's "Exclusion Keycard Blackwood" is presented, you will find this: "Notes: The convention of Exclusion Keycard Blackwood is also referred to as Voidwood.

Notes: The photograph of Mr. Robert (Bobby) Goldman is from the year 1982.



Basic Concept

In Exclusion Keycard Blackwood there are only four Keycards. Void suit is not counted. Therefore, only the other 3 Aces and the King of the trump suit count as the four Keycards. This conventional method is initiated:

 

1.After establishing the trump suit.2.By a jump bid higher than the game level in an unbid suit or3.In a suit bid by the opponents.

 

The suit of the jump bid is then excluded by partner from any response bids. The answer to the Keycard Asking is completed in the following way:

 

1st Step: Shows 0 Keycards.2nd Step: Shows 1 Keycard.3rd Step: Shows 2 Keycards.4th Step: Shows 3 Keycards." This presentation of the three application points reinforces my belief that the current convention has resumed that part of Smith regarding hands with special distribution (= with a missing suit). Therefore my indication in post #53 of the publication in the specialized journal "The Bridge World" was aimed at having the indications or considerations of the bidding problems that could have been presented and which can be taken taking into account the current bidding / competitive development without taking into account the response steps that have been changed with the keycards whose indication, if it were possible to have from that source or a similar one, would be useful to continue the discussion, considering more detailed the three conditions of the previous convention (for example in the case c where it was already reached the game level is also included the 3 NT bid).

[nullve]

My partner and I are trying to complete the auction on this deal:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj98632hqj9d7ca62&w=sa754h4dkj82cqj87&n=skqtht6532d954c95&e=shak87daqt63ckt43&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1d(NAT unBAL OR 20-22 BAL)2s3d(NAT INV)3s?]399|300[/hv]

Is there any reason to believe 4♠ should be Exclusion in this position?

[pescetom]

 

Is there any reason to believe 4♠ should be Exclusion in this position?

If you play 3D as invitational then I think you need 4S as a control bid. But if you play 4C or 4H as Kickback then 4NT can be Exclusion.

[Lovera]

My partner and I are trying to complete the auction on this deal:

[hv=pc=n&s=sj98632hqj9d7ca62&w=sa754h4dkj82cqj87&n=skqtht6532d954c95&e=shak87daqt63ckt43&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1d(NAT unBAL OR 20-22 BAL)2s3d(NAT INV)3s?]399|300[/hv]

Is there any reason to believe 4♠ should be Exclusion in this position?

 

Conventionnaly it'd be Exclusion because the overcalling is not with a jump but had to be reached although almost the fourth level.

[pescetom]

Conventionnaly it'd be Exclusion because the overcalling is not with a jump but had to be reached although almost the fourth level.

If 4S would be Exclusion, how would he show (with a different hand) control of spades and no control of hearts?

[Lovera]

If 4S would be Exclusion, how would he show (with a different hand) control of spades and no control of hearts?

 

Infact l've said "it'd be" because seems the same situation as in #53 but theare we had heart as trump and 4♠ was upper game then when is showed this overcalling it is a previous forcing bid.