Blackwood with a void

I forget sometimes (OK, most of the time) just how little competitive experience Agent 99 has. Not that I'm so terrifically well-seasoned, but I have been playing a long time, and I've lost to some internationally renowned players. And I spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet making myself feel closer to famous players, too. So there's actually a fair amount of stuff that is familiar to me that is probably a complete blank to her.

One of the more basic blind-spots cropped up the other day. What do you say when partner wheels out Blackwood, and you have a void?

Apparently, Agent 99 had never met this little conundrum before. Her improvised response was to treat the void as a key-card, which rapidly generated a zero as I put her in seven, and the defence found their ace. We were having a bad game anyway, and just to rub it in, some other pair bid and made seven on the wrong opening lead.

But there is an accepted way to respond. I suppose I thought Agent 99 must know it, but there's no reason why anybody would, unless they've been shown it. The basic scheme is to answer 5NT holding 0 or 2 keycards and a void, or bid 6 of the void holding 1 or 3 keycards and a void. There are some caveats and wrinkles, of course (there always are).

First of all, showing a void when you hold 0 keycards is hardly ever done. The only time Eddie Kantar (the RKC authority these days) would countenance it is when partner already knows you have a terrible hand, and is bidding RKC anyway. The sort of example Kantar gives might involve a 2C opening and relatively weak responding sequence, or something.

Second, only show useful voids. A void in partner's first-bid suit when you have agreed his second suit as trumps is almost certainly not an asset, and not something to brag about.

Third, if your void is in spades and hearts are trumps, and you have an odd number of keycards, you can't jump to 6S because that takes you past 6H. Jump to 6H instead.

This takes care of hearts and spades as trumps, when 4NT is the RKC asking bid. For us, it gets a bit more confusing when a minor suit is trumps, and we use Redwood, but it works just as well. Instead of 5NT to start showing voids, if you count the steps you see you get to 5D when the asking bid was 4D, or 5H when the asking bid was 4H.

Let's say clubs are agreed, and 4D is bid as 1430. Now,
4H = 1 or 4
4S = 0 or 3
4NT = 2 without the QC
5C = 2 with the QC
5D = 2 with a void
5H = 1 or 3 with a void H
5S = 1 or 3 with a void S
5NT = 1 or 3 with a void D
6C = I can't remember all this crap

Similarly, when diamonds are trumps and 4H is 1430:
4S = 1 or 4
4NT = 0 or 3
5C = 2 without the QD
5D = 2 with the QD
5H = 2 with a void
5S = 1 or 3 with a void S
5NT = 1 or 3 with a void H
6C = 1 or 3 with a void C
6D = I can't remember all this crap

As you can see, 5NT has become a “spare” bid, and can be used to show a void in the suit immediately higher-ranking than trumps. All the other voids can be named explicitly when you have an odd number of keycards.

Misadventures In Manhattan

Elwood resurfaced for his first game at the club since mid-January. Of course, I celebrated by playing eleven hands and only being dummy twice, but he didn't seem to mind. And it was a decent field for a club game, with at least half a dozen pretty good pairs in nine tables. The weak notrump seemed to be working well.



South's strategy of passing over 1NT and then doubling for takeout is standard practice. But on this hand, she is at the top limit for the initial pass – some might say over it – and the final result is below average.



North-South seem to have been paralysed by the bidding. To me, a bid of 2H from North over the transfer seems clear-cut. Even if you haven't discussed it with your partner (and even in a club duplicate I would expect that most pairs have), it should be pretty obviously for takeout, and North has the perfect shape for it. According to the computer, neither 2H nor 4S should make. To add insult to injury, half the field bid and made 4S, while I somehow scrambled 8 tricks the other way.

That last opening was a bit ugly. This one was even worse, and even more effective.



The opening was enough to keep out South, and the transfer bid shut out North. So we played quietly in clubs, and again I made a contract that should have failed. But this time, the North-South game was real, even though difficult to bid. A couple of pairs even made it doubled.

An odd occurrence was that board 24 of the set in use was mis-labelled. The dealer was shown as East rather than West. That made a big difference to the auction.



Not a very coherent auction, in my opinion. In the end, that worked in our favor, since nobody seemed sure of who could make anything. If the opponents double, they get a top. When they didn't, we got an almost-top.

Anyway, we finished up second on about 64%. Not bad for a come-back game.

Misadventures In Manhattan

A set with Agent 99 produced some interesting deals. At the second table, we sat down to this one.



North's raise seems feeble to me. I'm bidding 5C anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter. But failing to take the save was expensive – 5H should go 3 down, but in practice was often escaping for -2, while 99 wrapped up 5C with little effort.

Then came this little number.



Most people seem to have been a bit perplexed by the East hand. I admit, I was not exactly confident about opening 1S. But then we had a “routine” auction to game, and South decided to lead the AD even though I had bid the suit. That gave me the tempo to establish the diamonds and finish with all 13 tricks and almost all the matchpoints.

Our 2D replacement for 2NT made it's first appearance, and scored a top.



Making 9 tricks in diamonds earned the only plus score for E-W. Everybody else opened 2NT and couldn't find a making contract. Winner!

We also had a run-in with a pair playing something non-standard.
1C! – Pass – 1D – 1H; 1NT
1C was alerted as 13+, any distribution. I asked what 1NT showed, and was told “no agreement”. Frankly I don't believe it. And this was the third board we played against this pair, and they hadn't mentioned at any point that any of their bids were non-standard. And their convention card was pretty much uninformative. I didn't make a big stink about it, but I really think they were over the edge of unethical behavior. I think any time this pair shows up in the future and I'm there, they better be ready for some hard questions.

I've persuaded Agent 99 to play Rubensohl, and another session saw that crop up for the first time.



Not a good result, but not the fault of lebensohl, transfer or otherwise. With clubs agreed (bid first at 2NT and supported with 4C), we play Redwood. Agent 99 could have bid 4D and carried on to 6C: after all, all she really needs to know at that point is how many key cards I have, in order to choose between 5, 6 and 7.

Anyway, the next MIM post may feature the return of Elwood. I look forward to it.