RKC showing voids
#1
Posted 2017-December-01, 03:20
#2
Posted 2017-December-01, 03:38
#3
Posted 2017-December-02, 09:54
#4
Posted 2017-December-02, 10:38
How is he supposed to find out you have two key cards if that is all he needs when you have the more common hands with stiff instead of void?
#5
Posted 2017-December-03, 01:19
#6
Posted 2017-December-03, 02:28
Stephen Tu, on 2017-December-01, 03:20, said:
One solution that will help in some situations is an immediate void-showing raise of a major-suit opening bid. In my regular partnership this is 3♠ after a 1♥ opener and 3NT after a 1♠ opener. Naturally not all hands with voids will be suitable for this treatment, but if does have the advantage that you can find out the location of the void at game level or below, so opener will know whether it is useful.
#7
Posted 2017-December-03, 02:29
nige1, on 2017-December-01, 03:38, said:
Is this a wise idea? If partner is planning to place the final contrct in NT, she may seriously miscounted her tricks.
#8
Posted 2017-December-03, 12:28
Vampyr, on 2017-December-03, 02:29, said:
Assuming that you have already splintered to show a shortage, there should be no ambiguity. Experts seem reluctant to splinter with a singleton ace -- and even more reluctant to splinter with a singleton king.
#10
Posted 2017-December-03, 13:34
.
#11
Posted 2017-December-04, 12:16
Navigate to a bidding or teaching table and use my constraint file Charles's Shortness Constraint
To force hands where one partner will have a void, change line 13
from ( shape(south, any 0xxx + any 1xxx ) or shape(north, any 0xxx + any 1xxx) )
to ( shape(south, any 0xxx ) or shape(north, any 0xxx ) )
You'll often sing the sad song of Duplication: "Oh woe is me, if only the x of y were the x of b."
For example http://tinyurl.com/y7hxa9tv
If only that ace of hearts were the 2 of hearts and the 9 of spades were the ace of that suit. You'd make seven instead of having to settle for six.
And BTW, we never show a void as if it were a king. That's a sure fire recipe to find yourself in a 7NT that doesn't make where the ruffing value opposite of the void allows 7 of a suit to make in a walk.
#12
Posted 2017-December-05, 10:20
nige1, on 2017-December-01, 03:38, said:
The problem with this approach is that having asked and heard of your meagre real aces, partner may not ask further, but sign off.
* * *
My partnerships' approach is that after a splinter, if partner has slam desires he will always bid the next step as a singleton or void ask, with next step reply being singleton, and void being higher, an ace response if 2-steps up would have been your ace asking bid. This method is no good if after a round of bidding your splinter is itself the suit beneath trumps, eg 1♠ 2♣, 2♥ 4♦, but there is no problem with other splinter suits. Also no problem for an immediate splinter, say 1♠ 4♥, that is defined as singleton because a separate sequence is used for a specifically void hearts (Similar to Vampyr's idea, but just the one suit.)
If your splinters may be strong, such that the splinterer may wish to slam if partner fails to ask, then we utilise an alternative "ace ask" that defines the void. Therefore in fact my example "problem" sequence above is not a problem, and must be a singleton.
* * *
However, I cannot answer the OP question because I do not myself play RKCB void responses. I have no way to show a void as teller if I have not previously splintered.
#13
Posted 2017-December-05, 13:50
Stephen Tu, on 2017-December-01, 03:20, said:
The reason nobody defines a useful void is that you usually can't be reasonably sure, and if the void isn't useful, you could end up in a slam with too many quick losers.
Vampyr mentioned separate splinter like sequences for voids and singletons which solves this particular problem, but if you aren't playing that method, or there is a different bidding sequence then you are out of luck.
You could incorporate some more complicated methods.
e.g.
Bidding RKC immediately after splinter shows no interest in a club void
Cue bid then RKC shows interest in club void (and allowed responder to cue bid 5♣ as a void with a suitable hand)
#14
Posted 2017-December-12, 11:55
johnu, on 2017-December-05, 13:50, said:
We too distinguish between voids and singletons, both directly over a 1M opening and immediately after a simple 1M-2M raise. In practice our splinters are ambiguous in only a few clearly identified situations, such as a splinter by opener showing fit in responder's suit. We're still shaking this down, but it seems to work well.
When any kind of shortage has been shown we tend to prefer Control-bidding (Control-showing Cue bids) rather than RKC asking and this too helps avoid dangerous confusion; with Control-bids it's relatively simple to figure out if partner's ambiguous splinter is actually a void or not, and a second void held by either partner will not cause disasters either.
johnu, on 2017-December-05, 13:50, said:
...
Bidding RKC immediately after splinter shows no interest in a club void
...
Cue bid then RKC shows interest in club void (and allowed responder to cue bid 5♣ as a void with a suitable hand)
Makes sense, of course like all such sequences it has to be carefully agreed with partner: for many of us you can't even RKC at all once both partners have made a Control-bid.
#15
Posted 2017-December-12, 12:44
#16
Posted 2017-December-12, 13:22
In my main partnership 1S-4C is a singleton in clubs and 4NT is RKC for spades with 5 KC; 1S-3NT is an undisclosed void and 4 clubs asks, then 4NT is RKC for spades with 4 KC.