RKC responses showing "useful voids"

[bd71]

Partner and I have a treatment (which I believe is common) where, over 4N RKC with a "useful void" we will bid 5N w/ even keycards and 6x (x=void) with odd keycards. We have adopted this more because we understand it's typically standard among good players rather than any deep understanding or experience with the treatment.

 

Anyway, a few questions for those who feel more grounded in this method:

 

1. The presumption here seems to be that with a "useful void" and one keycard you're automatically in slam territory since you're virtually forcing to slam (unless you want to back out in 5N). Is that presumption always sound? Especially when the weaker hand is bidding 4N RKC, aren't there a number of situations when one keycard isn't enough? Or, is the expectation that people are deciding on a hand-by-hand basis whether the void plus keycards are sufficient, and even with a void if you feel you might be short of slam you just bid a standard 4-level keycard response, hiding the void?

 

2. Would appreciate folks comments on how good/useful they find this treatment...should it be automatic to include in our agreements?

 

3. Any other thoughts on pros/cons of this treatment?

[ArtK78]

It is my understanding that the "standard" agreement is that 6 of a suit is one key card with a void in the bid suit (presumed to be useful) and that 5NT shows 2 key cards with a presumed useful void. With zero key cards, responder makes the proper response for zero key cards.

 

If the void is not known to be useful, responder should not show it. That is a matter of judgment.

 

Over 5NT, I learned that asker can bid 6 of a suit to say "bid 7 if this is your void." I don't know if this is standard.

[CSGibson]

In response to your question, I have the following scheme:

 

5N is 2 keycards & a useful void.

 

IF keycard responder has shown opening values, then:

 

with 1 keycard, answer 1 and make a decision about whether to go on to slam opposite a sign-off based on your previous auction

 

with 3 keycards, answer the void at the 6 level, or 6 of our suit with a higher void.

 

 

IF keycard responder has not shown opening values, then:

 

with 1 keycard, answer the void at the 6 level, or 6 of our suit with a higher void.

 

with 3 keycards, show 3 & cue-bid the void later if possible.

[Cyberyeti]

We take a much more conservative view, and only show our voids with 2 controls. We do however make liberal use of optional voidwood in unusual situations so rarely have voids responding to ace asks.

 

5N= 2 without Q and a useful void

 

other bids are 2 with Q and void in the suit bid

[trevahound]

I recently switched (in a kickback context) to showing our regular keycard response with a useful void in steps beginning with 5 of the kickback suit (5nt if spades are trumps). So, playing 1430, again with spades trumps, after the 4nt ask I'd respond normally without a useful void (responses through 5♠), with 5nt being 1 or 4 with a useful void, 6♣ being 0 or 3 with a useful void, 6♦ being 2 without the Q but with a useful void, etc...

 

This allows us still to have a Q ask for those hands where the void showing preempted any Q ask. I find this useful, but am in the small sample size part of the experiment.

[Zelandakh]

If you are expected from the bidding to hold 2+ key cards, for example after opening 2♣, then you should obviously not show the void at the 6 level with 1 key card. In this case, the 6 level bids show 3 key cards plus the void. That avoids much of the "weak hand asking" problem you asked about. There are some notable posters here who believe that a void is never "useful". If you choose never to show a void in this way then the responses beyond the first 4 steps should probably show specific kings along with 4 key cards and the trump queen. I seem to recall that Ken has come up with a method based on optimising this approach.