[Flem72]

In an auction of the form

1m-(3Y)-3N-(P)
?

where Y>X, and assuming adequate Minorwood/Redwood agreements (another sticky wicket), shouldn't 4Y be Exclusion?

EDIT: yes, m = X, my bad

This post has been edited by Flem72: 2012-February-14, 17:27

[gszes]

i am unsure what you mean by y>x did you perchance mean
y>m??

here y>m

1c 3s 3n p
4s

here y<m

1h 3c 3n p
4c

Yet both sequences are excellent candidates for exclusion if your
partnership feels there is no better use for them. You give up
things to use others for ex

would I prefer 1c 3s 3n p 4s to be exclusion or showing this type
of hand.

void
KQxx
KQxx
AKQxx

how about a bit weaker?

after 1h 3c 3n p 4c

KQxx
AQJxx
KQxx
void

these are much more common than hands where opener can suddenly take
control with exclusion (and most of those will be grand slam
hunting where normal exclusion (at 5 level) is fine.

[kenrexford]

In competition, where the opponents have announced a suit, IMO a good default is for Kickback+1 to be Exclusion in their suit. Save space for when you need it.

Thus, if for example Opener's suit is clubs, 4♦ might be RKCB but 4♥ Exclusion, regardless of what suit the opponents have shown.