BBO Discussion Forums: Exclusion - BBO Discussion Forums

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.

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".

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.

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 10:21, said:

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.

ArtK78, on 2018-August-20, 11:35, said:

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.

Lovera, on 2018-August-20, 13:36, said:

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.

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 14:12, said:

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).

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.

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

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).

nullve, on 2018-August-21, 06:16, said:

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.

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

Vampyr, on 2018-August-21, 09:17, said:

Yes, it is so. Thanks.

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.

Lovera, on 2018-August-22, 07:35, said:

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.

pescetom, on 2018-August-22, 15:18, said:

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 ...).

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.

Lovera, on 2018-August-22, 16:20, said:

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

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

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.

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.