[Lovera]

Here the indicate .pdf from Kantar' book as indicated in #36. Please tell me if you can read it, thanks: https://drive.google...FVSEFxQndn/view

[dokoko]

How come that when opening a thread started by Lovera, I usually expect a monologue?

[Lovera]

As you have seen, I have already repeatedly solicited a dialogue (which I saw was slow to arrive) as I was dealing with a topic of general interest. Now I would be surprised if I did not confirm that I brought some official sources, as I usually do. I always remain of the opinion that I should have already received some comments for a more fruitful exchange of points of view, also considering that I have not finished the topic.

[Lovera]

How come you do not continue to talk about this topic even after I put in # 41 the .pdf of Kantar's book with examples of Exclusion at the fourth level? Do you have any problem posting here? To know that there already existed a convention with its application rules, do you think it is useful?

[nullve]

From the pdf:

Quote

After three level agreement, four level jumps are splinters and five level jumps are EKB asks.

Seems standard to me.

[Lovera]

nullve, on 2018-September-15, 09:41, said:

From the pdf:

Seems standard to me.

But not always. There are examples with jump at fourth level as Exclusion.

[nullve]

Lovera, on 2018-September-16, 10:20, said:

But not always. There are examples with jump at fourth level as Exclusion.

Yes, the pdf mentions exceptions that depend on system, for example

1♣-2♦*
3♦-4♠**.

* SJS
** Exclusion (not Splinter)

[Lovera]

The third application modality - the case c) - regards the given support with jump to the suit bidded by the partner (determining the agreement) after the bid opening and with the partner conclusion to 3NT. In this case the bidding of a new color beyond the level of the game has to be considered Exclusion. This type of jump bidding (direct at fourth levels or before closing) seems to characterize this convention.

[Lovera]

In this way we have at the fourth level Minorwood and RKB for hands w/o void (eventualy Kickback as Redwood in any case) whilest Exclusion for hands with a void.

[Lovera]

I've also seen that this convention is already used (with bidding examples) at the fourth level in NT( that can easyly be found at the "dangerous" bid on fifth level 'cause the narrow space). The indication of scale is a my suggest (can be changed if you retained) as also for the trump suit that cannot break but i think instead (and i've watched around it) has to be used the query for Queen useful when is used to discovere a ten cards fit. About controls: they are always in your cards (Aces and Kings) and i noticed that if is used the valutation 8-4-2-1 the value for six controls (four Aces and four Kings) in the whole desk is total 48(=32+16) and the minimum requested (2.5) is 20 either for A+A+K or A+K+K+K. It being that any player wants to use it lighter has to do it almost with the max equivalence to avoid a not right application of this convention (ultheriorly implementable).

[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]

Lovera, on 2019-January-18, 09:21, said:

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]

Quote

N: 1♠ 1NT ,3 ♥ 4 ♥, 5 ♦

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

Quote

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]

pescetom, on 2019-January-18, 13:33, said:

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.