Exclusion Blackwood About responses and continuations
#1
Posted 2012-December-07, 14:01
#2
Posted 2012-December-07, 14:28
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2012-December-07, 16:44
#4
Posted 2012-December-07, 18:44
#5
Posted 2012-December-07, 22:59
#7
Posted 2012-December-08, 03:47
steve2005, on 2012-December-07, 16:44, said:
Yes and no. The thing is, when responder has 2 or 3 keycards you (usually) want to be in slam. Why else would someone start an exclusion sequence? So responder can 'zoom' when he has more than 1 keycard.
#8
Posted 2012-December-18, 05:44
#9
Posted 2012-December-18, 06:07
George Carlin
#10
Posted 2012-December-18, 06:07
eg for us:
1♠-4♦ is exclusion but with 4♠ to show a minimum over which 4N is exclusion again, this means you have plenty of space.
If you have to bid 1♠-2N-3♠-5♦ as exclusion then you might want to play odd/even.
#11
Posted 2012-December-19, 16:17
gwnn, on 2012-December-18, 06:07, said:
Kanter recommends 012wo2w3 and notes that 3 is rare. One really has to wonder about 4 since that means the asker has a void and no key cards.
#12
Posted 2012-December-20, 02:12
gwnn, on 2012-December-18, 06:07, said:
Are you serious?
01234 is by far inferior to RCKB. If you really face a descission where you are not sure, how many KCS partner holds, there is a quite simple solution...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#13
Posted 2012-December-20, 09:37
In cases where exclusion cannot be planned in advance, we could agree to explore slams without that toy.
Do not conclude that our splinters always show voids; only those splinters where we launch immediately thereafter.
1S-4D
4S-4N=exlusion.
1S-2N
Any-4N=Reg RKC (Responder might well have a stiff somewhere, but didn't knee jerk a splinter bid because she intended to take over from the outset.)
#14
Posted 2012-December-20, 12:57
If someone can show me any hand in the history of the game where it was not OK just to keep my responses the same, I would be interested.
#15
Posted 2012-December-20, 13:56
jh51, on 2012-December-19, 16:17, said:
No way I had no idea, I literally thought of that like 2 days ago and I was about to post it. Obviously 30-14 is better than 14-30 since partner pretty much always wants to bid slam opposite 1, but I can't remember ever having 3 in my life so I'm sure 0-1-1-2-2 is even better.
- billw55
#16
Posted 2012-December-20, 15:45
Codo, on 2012-December-20, 02:12, said:
01234 is by far inferior to RCKB. If you really face a descission where you are not sure, how many KCS partner holds, there is a quite simple solution...
what is RCKB? do you mean 0314 exclusion?
ah 01122 sounds quite interesting.
George Carlin
#17
Posted 2013-January-03, 17:40
gwnn, on 2012-December-18, 06:07, said:
If you were hoping for 3 and you got 0 you're kind of screwed anyway, aren't you?
-- Bertrand Russell
#18
Posted 2013-January-04, 03:50
mgoetze, on 2013-January-03, 17:40, said:
One down is good bridge (so I am told).
#19
Posted 2013-January-04, 13:32
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#20
Posted 2013-January-04, 14:48