[trevahound]

 inquiry, on 2014-July-18, 07:58, said:

It seems that world is voting one key card.

See if this would affect your decision. Partner's auction showed hearts and spades. Why? With just hearts he would transfer to 2♥ then use Exclusion. The fact he went through stayman then jumped to 5♣ showed a spade suit by clear implication.

Our agreement is after notrump opening (1 or 2NT), if responder shows a two suiter then uses Blackwood after a fit is found, we use SIX keycard blackwood, four aces, and the kings of the two anchor suits partner showed (this we got from Book on Keycard Blackwood years ago). Partner agreed with all of you that say to show only one keycard. I followed what I thought was our agreement to show two (spade king, and heart ace). No real problem for us, we reached the laydown 6♥ contact, partner just tanked for a week before he bid it. He was missing the diamond ACE, and probably should have asked about the heart queen to see if I could I could show the ♠K and heart queen.

If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards?

Would your partner not Stayman first with just one major? Mine would. If partner genuinely has a club void, he's more likely to have 4-5 spades than 3 or fewer, but he can have fewer, and there's no reason to think he's focused on both M's as opposed to both reds, etc... Exclusion eats up a ton of room, and as such should be for a specific (rare) hand, not anytime I'm sort of slammish with a side void.

[PhilKing]

 inquiry, on 2014-July-18, 07:58, said:

If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards?

I think this line of reasoning is crazy. In fact you should have a meta agreement forbidding inferential use of meta-agreements. They are for analagous or defined undiscussed sequences - not for apparently logical inferences.

My subjective impression is that Exclusion RKCB loses an average of about 5 imps per use worldwide. It's the most error prone gadget out there right now.

And since most of us use Stayman with 4H and a longer minor, your inference about spades is flawed to start with.

[inquiry]

 PhilKing, on 2014-July-18, 08:38, said:

I think this line of reasoning is crazy. In fact you should have a meta agreement forbidding inferential use of meta-agreements. They are for analagous or defined undiscussed sequences - not for apparently logical inferences.

My subjective impression is that Exclusion RKCB loses an average of about 5 imps per use worldwide. It's the most error prone gadget out there right now.

And since most of us use Stayman with 4H and a longer minor, your inference about spades is flawed to start with.

If partner had hearts and a longer minor and slam interest, he would bid 2♠ over 2♥, to show that. My bid would be 2NT, and he would show his long minor or jump to exclusion. This would deny spades. We use that auction a lot, so I knew he had spades. So in fact if he had the AKQxx of diamonds, he wouldn't bother showing the two suiter, he would bid 2♠ then 5♣. If he had, say AQxxx of diamonds, he would bid 2♠, then 3♦, then 5♣. At least that is how that is suppose to go.

So I had no doubt he had a major two suiter. We commonly use the slam try in other major after stayman when holding a major-minor two suiter, but he hadn't thought the implication of this auction. He could have bid 2♠ then rebid 3♠ and then he would have been unable to jump to 5♣. I am willing to accept that everyone disagrees with me, including my partner, and admit defeat on this issue. I was just wondering if I could convince anyone there was method in my madness.

[billw55]

 inquiry, on 2014-July-18, 07:58, said:

Our agreement is after notrump opening (1 or 2NT), if responder shows a two suiter then uses Blackwood after a fit is found, we use SIX keycard blackwood, four aces, and the kings of the two anchor suits partner showed (this we got from Book on Keycard Blackwood years ago).

If YOU HAD SUCH an agreement related to responder with two suiters, would you have shown two key cards?

If I had an agreement whereby my hand contained two keycards, then I would show two keycards. This should be obvious?

If I was with a pickup partner and hence guessing at agreements, this is certainly not one I would try, even with an expert. In fact I would probably not try exclusion at all.

[gnasher]

 inquiry, on 2014-July-18, 08:51, said:

If partner had hearts and a longer minor and slam interest, he would bid 2♠ over 2♥, to show that. My bid would be 2NT, and he would show his long minor or jump to exclusion. This would deny spades. We use that auction a lot, so I knew he had spades. So in fact if he had the AKQxx of diamonds, he wouldn't bother showing the two suiter, he would bid 2♠ then 5♣. If he had, say AQxxx of diamonds, he would bid 2♠, then 3♦, then 5♣. At least that is how that is suppose to go.

So I had no doubt he had a major two suiter. We commonly use the slam try in other major after stayman when holding a major-minor two suiter, but he hadn't thought the implication of this auction. He could have bid 2♠ then rebid 3♠ and then he would have been unable to jump to 5♣. I am willing to accept that everyone disagrees with me, including my partner, and admit defeat on this issue. I was just wondering if I could convince anyone there was method in my madness.

Over 2♥, did partner have a way to show a slam-try with both majors?

[inquiry]

 gnasher, on 2014-July-18, 09:50, said:

Over 2♥, did partner have a way to show a slam-try with both majors?

Transfer to one major then bid the other major is forcing. Slam try would have to follow that. We use to play 3♥ major two suit game try and 3♠ as major two suit game force, but dropped that for the more productive use of those bids as fragment with three cards in other major.

[Vampyr]

 inquiry, on 2014-July-18, 08:51, said:

If partner had hearts and a longer minor and slam interest, he would bid 2♠ over 2♥, to show that. My bid would be 2NT...

Maybe this changes things; I don't really know. I imagine that most people who responded assumed that 2♠ here would deny hearts and show an invitational hand with four spades. Non-forcing.

[steve2005]

 fromageGB, on 2014-July-18, 05:43, said:

Does he? Wouldn't he like to know immediately of the ♠K, so that he can then ask for the ♠Q?

then he shouldn't have used exclusion KC if looking for side K♠, how bout just splintering (if playing that)

[PhilKing]

 steve2005, on 2014-July-18, 14:36, said:

then he shouldn't have used exclusion KC if looking for side K♠, how bout just splintering (if playing that)

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect - it's obligatory to just blast into exclusion and hope for the best!

[Fluffy]

I still don't get it, you have a way to show 4♥ and 5 minor?, and its different from what you do with 4♠ and 5 minor?, sounds like a big overkill to me.

[gnasher]

 inquiry, on 2014-July-18, 08:51, said:

I am willing to accept that everyone disagrees with me

Perhaps everyone does, but the poll doesn't tell you that. You asked us what we'd do playing one set of agreements; you can't infer from that what we'd do with a different set of agreements.

[whereagles]

 Cascade, on 2014-July-17, 21:59, said:

Partner asked a question I give the answer. I appear to have one key card I can't think of a reason to show a different number. Exclusion is not used for me in the first instance to exercise any judgement. It is for me to count up my key cards and trust that partner has exercised good judgement.

I usually exercise judgement before bidding (any bid, even mechanic ones), but I agree that in this case not masterminding is the good judgement

Also, any player whom I agree to play exclusion RKCB can certain exercise good judgement. I don't agree to play disaster-prone conventions with people who can't use them properly