[thepossum]

Hi all

Maybe I have a biased perception but I feel going a level too high to show a void is likely more risky than just risking missing an occasional slam

Any thoughts

PS I know confirmation bias but just recently after debating what looked like a certain slam in crowd on 6-1 with 5 hearts being 100%

[pescetom]

You have asked this before. FWIW I think it makes sense. If partner already hopes we have a slam and I have an unexpected void then it's odds on we do have a slam. The information will clue him in about not needing that Ace (and any wastage of other honours) and might enable him to call a grand.

[thepossum]

pescetom, on 2024-December-27, 07:47, said:

You have asked this before. FWIW I think it makes sense. If partner already hopes we have a slam and I have an unexpected void then it's odds on we do have a slam. The information will clue him in about not needing that Ace (and any wastage of other honours) and might enable him to call a grand.

Sorry not sure if remember a specific thread. I probably have mentioned in passing once or twice in the past when it has gone wrong

I am very careful about using it as responder when agt least I have some control - hard to know what to do if partner uses it as a response

The example above was a sad case of Ace opposite void

Maybe effective use of control bids can make it safer - just wondered

[mycroft]

One of the issues is that the right person should be keycarding most of the time. That person is the one with more keycards. "One and a useful void" should be enough for slam more often than not, and if it's not, then maybe we should have been investigating more, or letting the other partner KC (or not).

Like anything, there will be hands where "Oops, too high" because system. I'm more used to it at the 1 level (well, 1NT), frankly; I don't remember the last time a void-showing response was off two cashers (I do remember one where there was a slow loser and a KC, but yeah.)

So yes, maybe worry about it, especially if you're playing with bots most of the time; but if it's happening too often, check and see if the 4NT bidder had a better option they should have used.

[thepossum]

Sometimes, nearly always I have second thoughts and ignore my void.

Sorry rephrase I need to be fairly confident to go above 5

[mycroft]

Exactly, you should be fairly confident to go above 5. But that's the responsibility of the 4NT bidder, not you; unless you've shown 18+, "one and a useful void" should be enough for slam. If it isn't (and it isn't something like "it should have been useful, but unfortunately, partner has AQJxx in the void suit"), then it's not your fault for bidding 6♣, it's theirs for bidding 4NT off too many key cards.

Not showing the void is at least better than treating it as a key card (which I have also seen), I guess. At least you go plus (even if it's +480) in the fail case.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-December-30, 13:36, said:

If it isn't (and it isn't something like "it should have been useful, but unfortunately, partner has AQJxx in the void suit"), then it's not your fault for bidding 6♣, it's theirs for bidding 4NT off too many key cards.

A few years ago this sentence would have stumped me, but now I can parse low mycroftese like I once could read paper-tape fresh from a teletype
I agree, but would add that we really should already know that partner holds AQJxx or similar in our void suit and that he should have known we were at least short.
More in general, with a void and any vision of slam we should exploit splinters and control-bids, if these are in our repertory.

[Stephen Tu]

mycroft, on 2024-December-30, 13:36, said:

Exactly, you should be fairly confident to go above 5. But that's the responsibility of the 4NT bidder, not you; unless you've shown 18+, "one and a useful void" should be enough for slam.

The thing is, how do you know your void is "useful"? Partner may have Axxx and think "great, not much wastage" after you splintered earlier. He has everything else under control, he wants to bid slam opposite 2 keycards which is in your range. But oops you decide 1 is enough, and down you go, your void didn't decrease your number of losers vs holding a singleton, partner was already counting zero losers in that suit.

I have decided never to show voids in response to RKC. You don't know when void vs singleton is the bonus partner needs. It also interferes with other asks. Better to structure your system so that you distinguish between void/singleton splinters earlier in auction.

[mike777]

 Stephen Tu, on 2024-December-30, 19:01, said:

The thing is, how do you know your void is "useful"? Partner may have Axxx and think "great, not much wastage" after you splintered earlier. He has everything else under control, he wants to bid slam opposite 2 keycards which is in your range. But oops you decide 1 is enough, and down you go, your void didn't decrease your number of losers vs holding a singleton, partner was already counting zero losers in that suit.

I have decided never to show voids in response to RKC. You don't know when void vs singleton is the bonus partner needs. It also interferes with other asks. Better to structure your system so that you distinguish between void/singleton splinters earlier in auction.

Plus +++
I would not say never, but your post is spot on. Well said.

[mycroft]

I agree with all - including the "convoluted mycroftese" comment :-).

If you have better tools, absolutely use them.

If you don't, you get to decide if this tool, that "everyone" knows and can play, is too dangerous for the benefit it gives. My guess is that with a certain amount of patience (MikeH's and my "I wish people would stop bidding 4NT to mean 'hey partner, we might have slam!' "), it shouldn't be. Without that patience, or other ways to look, then yeah, maybe it is, and you resign yourself to missing those slams.

Like the perfecto-24 HCPs that rely on the 11-card trump fit and the duelling Aces-opposite-singletons, or the ones that require QJ or QT tight in the pocket to come home, or anything else your system can't find for you.

At lower than the absolute top class, at least at matchpoints, there will always be improvements to your game that will come up more often, and score better, than that kind of minutia. Slams are spectacular, sure. It's disappointing to miss a auto slam; but I'll take my 35% for +x80 and my two 75%s for the competitive auction we win because we put our effort into being better than the field instead, or even the two or three 68%s reward for all the "play of the hand" work I've been putting in (doesn't even require a partner to practise/agree!)

Yeah, IMPs is different. I don't get a chance to play that much any more.