[kgr]

Do you have a rule when a bid is Exclusion Blackwood?
eg jump to 5-level when a fit is found?
...what after eg a ♣ fit is found?

[ArtK78]

When a major suit is agreed, an unusual jump to the 5 level (or 4♠ when hearts is trump) is exclusion blackwood.

When you have an agreement in a minor suit, an unusual jump to 4 of a major should be exclusion blackwood.

1♦ - 2♦ (natural, whatever strength you play)
4♥

This cannot be natural, and 3♥ would be a splinter. So 4♥ has to be exclusion.

1♦ - 3♦ (preemptive)
4♥

What can this be other than exclusion? If you wanted to show 5-6 in the reds, you could bid 3♥ followed by 4♥. There is no need for 4♥ to be a splinter bid, as responder, with the weak hand, is in no position to make any slam decisions.

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

1♦ - 3♦ (preemptive)
4♥

What can this be other than exclusion?  If you wanted to show 5-6 in the reds, you could bid 3♥ followed by 4♥.  There is no need for 4♥ to be a splinter bid, as responder, with the weak hand, is in no position to make any slam decisions.

Disagree, this is a splinter.

If you jump to one level higher than the splinter, and it cannot be natural, in general, it is exclusion.

[ArtK78]

rogerclee, on Nov 18 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

1♦ - 3♦ (preemptive)
4♥

What can this be other than exclusion?  If you wanted to show 5-6 in the reds, you could bid 3♥ followed by 4♥.  There is no need for 4♥ to be a splinter bid, as responder, with the weak hand, is in no position to make any slam decisions.

Disagree, this is a splinter.

If you jump to one level higher than the splinter, and it cannot be natural, in general, it is exclusion.

If you can't splinter anymore, and you jump to one level higher than the cuebid, and it is clearly not natural, it is exclusion.

It is pointless to splinter opposite a weak hand.

[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Nov 18 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

1♦ - 3♦ (preemptive)
4♥

What can this be other than exclusion?  If you wanted to show 5-6 in the reds, you could bid 3♥ followed by 4♥.  There is no need for 4♥ to be a splinter bid, as responder, with the weak hand, is in no position to make any slam decisions.

Disagree, this is a splinter.

If you jump to one level higher than the splinter, and it cannot be natural, in general, it is exclusion.

If you can't splinter anymore, and you jump to one level higher than the cuebid, and it is clearly not natural, it is exclusion.

It is pointless to splinter opposite a weak hand.

You are just wrong. You honestly think exclusion is much more useful?

[cherdano]

I like to play that a jump is only exclusion if
- it is a jump beyond game, and
- either we already had trumps agreed, or there is a cheaper splinter available.

(3♦) 3♠ 5♦ is a splinter
(2♦) 2♠ 5♦ is exclusion
(2♥) 2♠ 3♥ 4♣ 5♦ is exclusion

Artk78's example is clearly more useful as a splinter in my mind.

[ArtK78]

To me, it is irrational for the strong hand (and, under the facts presented, a much stronger hand) to give captaincy to the weak hand by splintering.

How is the weak hand supposed to use this information to arrive at the correct contract? In all likelihood, there will be no duplication of values opposite the short suit because the responder has no values. That is a big help.

All that a splinter by opener is likely to accomplish is to give away information to the opposition about opener's shape. At least when opener has a void there is a legitimate chance that responder may provide useful information to opener about his honors in the other suits. There is a chance that responder has an ace for his weak raise. The presence or absence of a useful ace may be all that is needed for slam.

This is besides the fact that, at least in exploring for small slams, you are limiting exclusion blackwood to major suit fits since you would require that the exclusion bid must be beyond game. If you are beyond game in a minor, you are committed to a small slam. So you are using exclusion blackwood in a minor suit fit only for grand slam exploration.

It makes no sense to me.

[awm]

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

To me, it is irrational for the strong hand (and, under the facts presented, a much stronger hand) to give captaincy to the weak hand by splintering.

How is the weak hand supposed to use this information to arrive at the correct contract?  In all likelihood, there will be no duplication of values opposite the short suit because the responder has no values.  That is a big help.

The problem is that this presupposes that Exclusion will be useful, then tries to argue that a splinter is not useful.

But in fact all the same objections to a splinter apply to Exclusion. Usually the weak hand will not have any keycards. Certainly it's unlikely to contain more than one. So bidding exclusion opposite a weak hand is not that likely to be useful either.

If I'm seriously trying for slam opposite a weak raise, I'm likely to have most of the necessary controls. For the most part I am looking for partner to have one or two useful cards to go with our big fit and my own excellent values. Exclusion only helps if partner's cards are (or have to be) keycards outside my void. Splinter helps me find useful cards outside my shortness of many varieties. So I would say that splinter is strictly better than exclusion.

Here's a simple example hand:

♠AQxx
♥-
♦AQxxx
♣AQJx

I open 1♦ and partner bids 3♦. Clearly slam is a possibility. If I bid 4♥ exclusion then I will find out if partner has the diamond king or not. But this doesn't really tell me whether to bid slam -- we are cold for slam opposite both black kings and no diamond king, whereas if partner has the diamond king but absolutely nothing else we will have trouble making slam (unless partner has a doubleton spade, in which case it's about 75%). On the other hand, if I bid 4♥ splinter we will immediately be in slam if partner holds any two of the missing kings, and we will avoid a lot of bad slams.

[jdonn]

And to repeat an argument from another thread, splinters are sooooooo much more common to hold than exclusion that if a bid might be either the choice should be obvious.

I think you are simply exagerating to say partner will have "no" values. He will probably have a little, and you might want to know if those are in a certain suit or not.

[kenrexford]

Too many people have overly simplistic ideas of when Exclusion should be used (me too until recently). My thought:

1. Normally, a jump above game is exclusion.

2. However, a jump above game is NOT exclusion if:
2A. the jump is to the suit into which you jump is a suit you have already shown or in which you must necessarily have length. This seems obvious, but assigning a different meaning to these jumps is rarely done. 6KCB might make sense; my preference is for this to be an "asking bid" of sorts, RKCB with the King and Queen of this suit shown rather than the KQ in trumps.
2B. the jump is to a suit where partner has already denied the Ace. This one is missed also. If partner has denied a club control, then 5♣ as "exclusion" makes no sense.
2C. the jump is into a suit bid by the opponents when we have no other way to ask for a control here for slam purposes. This one is debatable.

3. 4NT is exclusion, typically, for the kickback suit when kickback is used, unless #2 makes that meaning impossible.

4. 4NT can be exclusion by a person who splintered and then asked himself, with a void in the shown short suit; again, debatable.

5. Bids that are not jumps might be exclusion if contextually obvious after application of partnership agreements/style.

There's probably a lot more to this, but this is a sampling of thoughts on the subject.

[mikeh]

Art is clearly in a small minority in his view of 1♦ 3♦ (weak) 4♥.. as others have cogently argued, while a splinter may seem to be of limited utility, it is FAR more likely to be useful as a splinter than as exclusion.

There is a 3rd possibility, and this applies also to a jump to 4♠ in a forcing auction in which hearts have been agreed... I agree with Art that 4♠ would normally be exclusion, but some players (me among them when I can get partner on board) treat a jump to one above the trump suit as simple keycard (when playing in hearts, we switch the meanings of 4♠ and 4N, so that a jump to 4N would be exclusion in spades). I admit this is a quibble.

A more important addition to your keycard arsenal arises after a texas transfer response to 1N or 2N (or 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N etc): a new suit by responder is exclusion. Thus 1N 4♦ 4♥ 5♣ is exclusion... this one probably comes up as frequently as any exclusion treatment.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on Nov 18 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

Art is clearly in a small minority in his view of 1♦  3♦ (weak) 4♥.. as others have cogently argued, while a splinter may seem to be of limited utility, it is FAR more likely to be useful as a splinter than as exclusion.

There is a 3rd possibility, and this applies also to a jump to 4♠ in a forcing auction in which hearts have been agreed... I agree with Art that 4♠ would normally be exclusion, but some players (me among them when I can get partner on board) treat a jump to one above the trump suit as simple keycard (when playing in hearts, we switch the meanings of 4♠ and 4N, so that a jump to 4N would be exclusion in spades). I admit this is a quibble.

A more important addition to your keycard arsenal arises after a texas transfer response to 1N or 2N (or 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N etc): a new suit by responder is exclusion. Thus 1N 4♦ 4♥ 5♣ is exclusion... this one probably comes up as frequently as any exclusion treatment.

If you are playing kickback where 4♥ would be RKCB when diamonds is the trump suit or 4♠ would be RKCB when hearts is the trump suit, then 4NT would be exclusion for the suit that is impossible to bid.

I agree that a hand that fits into the definition of a splinter bid comes up much more often than a hand that fits into the definition of an exclusion blackwood bid. I merely contend that using a splinter in such an auction is likely to be worthless.

[OleBerg]

My agreement, for better or worse:

It is exclusion blackwood if:

- It is a jump unnescesary to create a force, and
- It preempts our normal ace-checking.'

For instance:

1♠ - 4♣
5♦

4♣ showed spades and clubs.
5♦ is voidwood

A few specific cases has also been defined as voidwood.

[OleBerg]

Hi all,

just an input to the

"splinter vs exclusion blackwood"


When considering whether a bid should be splinter or XBW, you have to consider the alternative routes that can be taken.

Can a hand with a singleton be handled by an alternative route? If it can, let the space-consuming bid be exclusion. If not, let it be a splinter.

For instance:

1♦ - 3♦ (weak)

Well, if my only possible continuation was 4♥, 4♠ and 4NT, I'd probably prefere 4♥/♠ to be splinter.

As it is, I can bid 3♠ on the example hand, and have a meaningfull dialogue with partner from there.

I like to reserve some bids to show voids, simply because when you have voids, the number of aces you need for slam changes.

[keylime]

I tend to play Exclusion only at the five level (unless hearts, then 4S can be that). Removes any ambigious overtones.

[MickyB]

keylime, on Nov 19 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

I tend to play Exclusion only at the five level (unless hearts, then 4S can be that). Removes any ambigious overtones.

Splinters below game, exclusion above.

[FrancesHinden]

I play exclusion very very rarely. I've once in my life had an exclusion sequence, and all that happened was that we went off at the 5-level (stupid partner opened a strong NT with AKQJ in my void suit).

As a general rule I believe that telling partner I have a void, and inviting his contribution to the auction, is a far more useful tool than just asking for keycards. In other words, I believe the exact opposite of

Quote

agree that a hand that fits into the definition of a splinter bid comes up much more often than a hand that fits into the definition of an exclusion blackwood bid. I merely contend that using a splinter in such an auction is likely to be worthless.

although I might add the word "void" before splinter.

So my generic rules are:

- If in doubt, it's not exclusion
- If you have one "unnecessary" jump available, it's a splinter, singleton or void
- If you have two "unnecessary" jumps available, the first is a splinter and the second is a void; neither is exclusion.
- If you have three "unnecessary" jumps available, the first is a splinter, the second is a void, and only then is the third exclusion

(1C - 1S
3D = singleton
4D = void
5D = exclusion)

- If you have already shown a void, and later bid RKCB, that's exclusion (this must be the least controversial rule!)
(1C - 1S; 4D - 4S; 4NT)

- If you splinter, learn nothing from partner, and next bid RKCB, that's exclusion
(1H - 4D; 4H - 4NT)

[Cascade]

We have the following rules:

1. We play kickback.

2. Jumps above a splinter show a void. We play single jumps are splinters over opening bids in a major so double jumps there show voids. Double jumps over a minor also show a void although a single jump is not a splinter.

3. Other unusual jumps above four of our trump suit are voids, for example in a cue-bidding sequence. A jump to 4NT would be a void in the kickback suit.

4. Only void showing jumps above four of our trump suit are exclusion blackwood. Lower void showing jumps initiate cue-bidding. Either partner may subsequently use kickback which will be interpreted as exclusion if by the player showing the void.

[bid_em_up]

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Nov 18 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

1♦ - 3♦ (preemptive)
4♥

What can this be other than exclusion?  If you wanted to show 5-6 in the reds, you could bid 3♥ followed by 4♥.  There is no need for 4♥ to be a splinter bid, as responder, with the weak hand, is in no position to make any slam decisions.

Disagree, this is a splinter.

If you jump to one level higher than the splinter, and it cannot be natural, in general, it is exclusion.

If you can't splinter anymore, and you jump to one level higher than the cuebid, and it is clearly not natural, it is exclusion.

It is pointless to splinter opposite a weak hand.

Yea, almost as pointless as it would be to bid exclusion opposite a weak hand.

[ArtK78]

bid_em_up, on Nov 19 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Nov 18 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 18 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

1♦ - 3♦ (preemptive)
4♥

What can this be other than exclusion?  If you wanted to show 5-6 in the reds, you could bid 3♥ followed by 4♥.  There is no need for 4♥ to be a splinter bid, as responder, with the weak hand, is in no position to make any slam decisions.

Disagree, this is a splinter.

If you jump to one level higher than the splinter, and it cannot be natural, in general, it is exclusion.

If you can't splinter anymore, and you jump to one level higher than the cuebid, and it is clearly not natural, it is exclusion.

It is pointless to splinter opposite a weak hand.

Yea, almost as pointless as it would be to bid exclusion opposite a weak hand.

Far from true.

1♦ - 3♦ (preemptive)
?


x
---
AQxxxxx
KQJxx

If partner has a black ace in addition to his diamonds (which should be at least JTxxx) you are cold for slam. But you want to stay below 5♦.

Would you bid something other than 3♦ preemptive holding:

xxx
xxx
JTxxx
Ax

And don't harp on the fact that the opponents haven't bid despite having half the deck and 45 major suit cards. The opponents don't always bid when it seems that they should be bidding.

Hands that are appropriate for exclusion blackwood are almost always freak hands. You can redistribute the suits in the given hand in any order (keeping the AQxxxxx of diamonds) and you have an exclusion blackwood hand. If partner has an ace, as long as it is not opposite the void you are cold for slam.