[nullve]

 pescetom, on 2018-August-24, 15:23, said:

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]

 nullve, on 2018-August-26, 05:04, said:

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.

[Lovera]

The indication, for my part, of the "Smith" convention (whose scale of responses is for controls while we are currently requesting keycards instead) serves to show that, long before the "Exclusion" was officialized, there was already a similar moreover, agent at a lower declarative level! On the contrary, of this convention are to be considered and, if possible, to maintain the application conditions already indicated and which are: over-calling of suit of opponents; jump bid; new suit at the fourth level when the game level (starting from 3NT) has been exceeded. Since at the fourth level other biddings are used for the search of the slam it is necessary to establish a set of rules that organize all this in such a way as to avoid ambiguity or critical declarations. The repeated my reminders to have a further comment (missing currently) are used to see how this topic is followed as well as being an opportunity for a discussion on the merits or for clarification or, also, to have suggestions if, as it seems, some player has already provided to develop something according to this point of view. Share your thinking.

[Lovera]

I can not understand why there are no other post that encourage discussion on the use of the "Exclusion" at the fourth level according to the three application modalities indicated (taken from the "Smith" convention). Can you let me know something? Thank you.

[nullve]

 Lovera, on 2018-August-28, 01:08, said:

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."

I'm sure the Smiths would have embraced the concept of key cards had they known about it. So instead of Smith 4N and void-showing Smith they might have developed versions of what are now known as RKCB and ERKCB, respectively.

So void-showing Smith definetely looks like an early precursor to ERKCB, which I guess is your point.

[Lovera]

 nullve, on 2018-September-04, 04:45, said:

I'm sure the Smiths would have embraced the concept of key cards had they known about it. So instead of Smith 4N and void-showing Smith they might have developed versions of what are now known as RKCB and ERKCB, respectively.

Probably it can be so (the term "keycard" seems to be borned later although). Obviously we can switch to keycards as we know it.

Quote

So void-showing Smith definetely looks like an early precursor to ERKCB, which I guess is your point.

Not at all. I have considered the many affinities but i principally am interested in useing similarly but at fourth level (instead of fifth as in "Exclusion" conv.) with the same three application ways.

[pescetom]

 Lovera, on 2018-September-04, 09:00, said:

Not at all. I have considered the many affinities but i principally am interested in useing similarly but at fourth level (instead of fifth as in "Exclusion" conv.) with the same three application ways.

I continue to find this idea unrealistic. Jumps to the 4-level are important bidding furniture, contested between Splinters, Control-bids, Kickback and other more important/frequent conventions than ERKCB.
An alternative that I play with one partner is that a jump to 3NT shows an undisclosed void with fit and 4♣ is a puppet asking for the suit, after which RKCB or control-bids are Exclusion of course. This also allows the inference that Splinters are precisely 1-card which again modifies control-bidding. The downside is that you have to give up other uses for 3NT and have less bidding space when the shortage is in a black suit.
I don't think it would be realistic to invert this convention, singletons are much more frequent than voids and game-seeking splinters badly need the extra space to control-bid offered by a "natural" splinter in a black suit.
One alternative we tried is to play normal splinters (ambiguous between singleton/void) and to interrogate for singleton/void. But we soon found that voids are never there when you want them and that giving up one control-bid just to be able to ask was too much.

[Lovera]

 pescetom, on 2018-September-04, 09:33, said:

I continue to find this idea unrealistic. Jumps to the 4-level are important bidding furniture, contested between Splinters, Control-bids, Kickback and other more important/frequent conventions than ERKCB.
An alternative that I play with one partner is that a jump to 3NT shows an undisclosed void with fit and 4♣ is a puppet asking for the suit, after which RKCB or control-bids are Exclusion of course. This also allows the inference that Splinters are precisely 1-card which again modifies control-bidding. The downside is that you have to give up other uses for 3NT and have less bidding space when the shortage is in a black suit.
I don't think it would be realistic to invert this convention, singletons are much more frequent than voids and game-seeking splinters badly need the extra space to control-bid offered by a "natural" splinter in a black suit.
One alternative we tried is to play normal splinters (ambiguous between singleton/void) and to interrogate for singleton/void. But we soon found that voids are never there when you want them and that giving up one control-bid just to be able to ask was too much.

Not at all. I never said that are not conflict with others bids: it remain to see(=to study) what alternative to solve it. About the final part of your post:a player can use the system that he wants but the problem arise when has to combine it remaining as more natural as possible.

[johnu]

 Lovera, on 2018-September-04, 02:39, said:

I can not understand why there are no other post that encourage discussion on the use of the "Exclusion" at the fourth level according to the three application modalities indicated (taken from the "Smith" convention). Can you let me know something? Thank you.

From your own description, the Smith Convention equates 2 possibly non-key kings with an ace (kings = 1/2 control, ace = 1 control) in the valuation of bids for slam bidding. I could go into more detail, but "worthless" seems a perfectly adequate and descriptive summary.

[Lovera]

 johnu, on 2018-September-04, 20:14, said:

From your own description, the Smith Convention equates 2 possibly non-key kings with an ace (kings = 1/2 control, ace = 1 control) in the valuation of bids for slam bidding. I could go into more detail, but "worthless" seems a perfectly adequate and descriptive summary.

As established for the "Smith" at that time no distinction was made between King or Ace in the trump suit (as we do now) but, through the step responses, was given only the quantity or total value as already indicated ( King = 1/2 control, Ace = 1 control) giving then the corresponding answer. I have summarized the answer scale on the 4NT for retention which I do not need at this moment (however, one can easily guess the complete development already by me indicated). When we applied that (which interests us) for distribution the scale varies starting from 1/2 control and so excluding obviously the controls in the suit bidded jumping. It follows that, having detected the overall total of the controls, the corresponding response step was twice the total (i.e. with 1 control and a half was the third step).

[Lovera]

This convention is useful as it is selective and mainly used when information on three suits is only necessary for the search of the slam and it is therefore to be implemented also in applying it more easily at a lower level. Of the three modes of application that - the case a) - relating to the overcalling of the opponents suit (the trump agree is identified by inference in the last suit bidded when it was not previously expressly stated) I think you find several agree because, moreover, seems to have already been applied to the fourth level. In order to avoid complications, I believe that a single answer scale such as 1430 can be used for all suits except club in which case 0314 is used.

[Lovera]

Also the jump bid - the case b) - sets as trump the last suit, unless there was previously bidded explicitly another agree suit, starting the sequence of responses according to the indicated scale. When you have such hands you have to be alerted as you will run with confidence towards the little slam, discovering that often you will also have 13 tricks between your cards. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that with such unbalanced hands it is probable that the atouts don't break, with what it can achieve.

[Lovera]

I had noticed that even for the jump bid there was already some player who performed it but, in fact, I have to say (and I regret that, instead, someone had not pointed out to me) that the speech I was carrying out is already applied (ie the use on the fourth level convention). And the confirmation that what I'm saying is true I had when looking in Kantar's book on RKB Part XVIII (RKB18). What I recommend is to learn, if you need it, with the examples with the cards and the bidding, however giving a reading to what is written to integration (I had not accompanied with examples that now will not fail to consider what I indicated enough intuitive).

[nullve]

Lovera, have you read the Progressive VOID Gerber thread? (You can ignore my contribution there, which I essentially copy-pasted above.)

[nullve]

Also: FINCH CLINCH

[Lovera]

Hi, nullve. What I found in Kantar's book on RKCB The Final Word (2004 edition) already uses keycards as we know them and so there is not something new to learn. That chapter XVIII has 21 pages and many examples and is part of the book available in pdf (the one indicated is the 18.th) but I have not managed to understand how to transfer with the url. Can you help me ? Thank you.

[pescetom]

 nullve, on 2018-September-09, 13:39, said:

Lovera, have you read the Progressive VOID Gerber thread? (You can ignore my contribution there, which I essentially copy-pasted above.)

I think those examples of PVG illustrate well how costly it is to give up 4-level bids just to show voids.

Example 1♦ – 3♦ - 4♥, says, (OK ♦s are Trumps), but I have a void in ♥s
And if I have mild slam interest and the A♥ but xx♠ what do I bid?

1♠ – 4♥, means love your ♠s, have a void in ♥s
I'd much rather use this sequence as some kind of splinter, or even play this as (gasp) natural.

Note that using more normal agreements both sequences can still show a void in ♥, but can also show other kinds of control.