When computing relative homology, I know how to find the maps, how to find all the absolute homology groups, and how to show $H_2(X,A)$ is (usually) $0$. My issue is I do not understand how to compute $H_1$ and $H_0$ in this example, but for different reasons than the OP. I do not see where this comes from:
"I use the theorem that says that the succession of $$0\to H_1(\partial M)\to H_1(M)\to H_1(M,\partial M)\to 0$$ is an exact one."
Well, if that is true, $H_1(M,\partial M)$ is immediate, because for any exact $0 \to A \stackrel{f}\to B \to C \to 0$ we have $C\cong B/\text{im}(f)$, and I already know the image there is $2\mathbb{Z}$. I can find $H_0$ similarly.
But I am unfamiliar with this idea of isolating a smaller short exact sequence from a long exact sequence. When can one do this and why?
In the LES for $H_n(M,\partial M)$, the group $H_1(M,\partial M)$ is followed by $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z} \to H_0(M,\partial M) \to 0$. Why can we "skip" all this information and "jump" to the last $0$ to obtain the SES above? Or is that not what's going on here?