Ah, but the original comment (tongue in cheek, presumably!) was:
And you do need a partner here to get to the correct grand slam.
Absolutely correct.
Blackwood is not useful when you have a void. Cue-bids are much better.
In a forcing situation, jumps to game are weaker than approach bids.
The responding hand I had in mind was actually:
Spades Jxxx
Hearts Void
Diamonds xxxxx
Clubs xxxxx
I would expect the bidding to go:
2C (forcing to game)
2D (weak, less than an Ace + King)
2H (natural suit)
2NT (very weak, no fit)
3S (second suit)
5S (natural, big fit)
7S (no losers)
Of course this is a dramatic example. But I just wanted to emphasise that 7S is 99%, whereas even 6H might not make.
Partners matter in bridge!
Since we have a few experts here, I have a question.
I decided to get back into bridge after about 30 years and started playing online at Yahoo. Twice I ended up in an unmakable contract because my partner left me in a suit where he had a void. My suit was rebidable, but there was no indication I’d have seven cards in it, so I had to try to play at the two level without a majority of trump.
When I was playing, I would never have left my partner in such a situation. Even if I had a weak hand, I’d suggest a different suit (in both cases, I was bidding clubs, so a raise wouldn’t have increased the number of tricks), even if I was slighly short on point count, simply because we’d have a better shot if we found a fit.
Was I wrong?
Although I am a chess expert 
, I’m only a club player at bridge.
Having said that, it is certainly disappointing to be in a contract with a minority of trumps. (Of course this can simply happen when, for example, you open 1H and your partner has a very weak hand with few hearts.)
Can you give an example of what happened to you?
Consider these hands:
S xx
H xx
D AQx
C AQJxxx
S Kxxxx
H QJxxx
D Jxx
C void
Top hand above opens, and the bidding goes
1C 1H
2C ?
Now a bid of 2S pushes the contract towards the 3 level.
2H is possible, but could find a heart shortage in partners hand.
Pass is often best on a misfit.
A weak responder should not bid new suits. Assuming you have not made some kind of strong bid (e.g. a reverse bid), a new suit by him promises extra strength; in fact if he is an unpassed hand, a new suit bid by him is 100% forcing under standard methods. Sometimes this means his choices are to rebid his own 5-card suit (if of suitable quality); rebidding your first-bid suit with only two card support (which is called “taking preference” and is among the weakest bids he can make); or passing and hoping for the best. (Rebidding 2NT would be an invitational bid.)
So yes, you may find yourself in a 6-0 fit in an auction like:
You - Partner
1H - 1S
2H - Pass
and then when dummy comes down:
QTxxx
(void)
Kxxx
Qxxx
Kx
AQxxxx
QTx
Kx
Yuck. But really, where would you rather be than in 2H?
Imagine if responder trotted out 3C or 3D over 2H… It wouldn’t be long before the opponents stepped in with the axe (which means: doubling your ass for penalties)!.
Well, that is not universally agreed upon. FWIW I do believe your approach is considered “Standard American”, or at least it would have been considered so 5+ years ago when I was last active in bridge.
However “expert” consensus these days leans towards a philosophy called “The Principle of Fast Arrival”, which basically means that in a forcing auction, jumping to the level of the force (i.e. jumping to game in a game forcing situation) is the WEAKEST bid you can make, suggesting the auction end there. Thus a SLOW auction is by inference stronger than a FAST auction.
With this understanding in place,
2C-2D
2S-2NT
4H
would certainly be weaker than rebidding 3H (which would still be forcing), unless you have otherwise specifically discussed this auction as showing a solid two-suiter.
BTW undiscussed auctions like this is where imaginative partners who shall remain nameless (and have learned too many conventional bids and acquired too little constructive bidding experience) can get very unpredictably creative, and ruin what is otherwise an extremely straightforward auction. (“Ooh, we generally don’t open strong 2-suiters with 2C, so 4H must be… an auto-splinter! He’s got a single-suited hand with solid spades and a singleton or void in hearts!”)
Before I get accused of American Chauvinism, I want to say that I just noticed that you are in the UK and have been discussing ACOL-based bidding, which I have no familiarity with at all. Consider my last post a comment on Fast Arrival as as general principle and not on how to bid the hand under ACOL.
I’m no expert, but most of what I’ve read on bridge has been Acol-related (Acol’s not an acronym, btw), and I think we’re in agreement; there’s no need to force when you’re already in a forcing situation. I’d read a jump to 4H as discussed above as a sign-off rather than a splinter, but certainly not an encouragement to a heart slam.
glee’s example in post 62 I agree with almost entirely, except that as the responder I’d bid 3C instead of 2NT second time round, showing the cheaper five-card suit. (I’m much more used to holding hands like that instead of the 6-6-0-1 behemoth, you understand ).
This is probably a regional thing as well. I come from the Pittsburgh area, where prople will play cards at the drop of a hat. But bridge doesn’t seem widely played there.
You won’t lack pinochle and euchre games, though, not to mention poker.
One word: GOULASH. 
[Homer]Mmm… Goulash…[/Homer]
Computer programs toss up the occasional wild and woolly one too, which argues that normal shuffling and dealing is something less than truly random. Anyway, my ambition is to live long enough to be dealt a genuine 4NT opener. (Or to be sat opposite a “gambling 3NT” opening bid with enough points and distribution to bid a minor suit slam on a void. That would be so cool.)
Well, Cohen and Lederer’s book was first published in 1969.
young (by bridge standards - 26) bridge player checking in
the average age of a bridge player in north america is something like 67 last i checked. i don’t have the specific stats, but am of the understanding that this numbers is dropping outside of north america - in many european countries and i believe australia you can actually play bridge as an elective course in high school or make a reasonable living as a bridge teacher in a high school.
if you’re a young player and want to play bridge, just show up at any local club - they’ll be so happy to see a new face, particularly a young one, you’ll have no trouble picking up a partner and generally be shown a good time.
if you’re interested in learning the game you may want to check out the 5th chair for some web-based introductory lessons/quizzes. alternatively, you can download the Learn to Play Bridge software.
i’ve been playing online for about 5 years or so and i’ve found that my favourite place to play is bridge base online (i believe someone mentioned this one already) which is free - and the owners (who wrote the LTPB software linked above) are very focused on keeping it that way, as well as keeping it as friendly as possible.
if anyone’s interested in trying an online game but doesn’t want to partner with a total stranger, they’re welcome to email me or catch me on aim/msn to play a few hands etc.
incidentally, i would never open this hand 2C:
AKQxxx
AKQxxx
void
A
unless it was systematically unavoidable. (one of the best aspects of bridge, to me, is freedom to design your system to suit your own preferences!)
Why on Golgafrincham not? Haven’t glee and I demonstrated that you can economically navigate your way to the most lucrative slam that’s on by using the system? 2S is a plausible bid, but to be honest, the hand’s way too strong for that - you’ve got far more than eight playing tricks. What would you open? 
1D, artificial 16+ hcp 
I agree that in general strong two-suiters should not be opened with 2C (assuming that is an artifical and strong bid), as it becomes hard to show both suits starting at such a high level (especially if opponents interfere).
However there is another litmus test for these sorts of hands, which is: if partner can pass, and does, and the hand passes out after you open (say) 1S, will you feel very, very bad?
In other words, unless you have some other systemic way to guarantee that partner will not pass, you’d better open with your forcing opening bid when you have game if not slam IN HAND.
Screw Bridge! Let’s get back to Hearts.
What is the point of playing without the Jack of Diamonds? Do you play a version where he is worth points?
which i happen to. but you’re quite right - if i were playing sayc or 2/1 i’d grudgingly open this 2C.
bump
You can tell how often I do a vanity search. Yes, I do play. Anywhere from once a week to…oh, huh…every darn night. This week alone I’ll probably be playing in five sessions of it at the club and sectional level. There’s a national tournament coming up in Atlanta in a few weeks which, alas, I will not be able to attend.
I like bridge. I like Texas hold’em too but I’d probably make more money at bridge if I could play that full time. I learned it in college about hmm…eight years ago maybe? Have been hooked ever since. It’s a fascinating game and you never quite get a firm grasp on it no matter how long you’ve played or how many deals you’ve seen.
Hah, you dislike bridge and like the Jack of Diamonds rule? You wuss! 
I have played Hearts where the Jack of Diamonds is worth -10 points. Personally I dislike the rule; I like the idea that the only way to reduce your score is to shoot the moon. When playing with good players it’s not easy to shoot the moon, which makes it all the more fun to do it Plus, shooting the moon and also taking the Jack (which happens a lot, since often shooting is done by basically taking nearly all the tricks) results in a potential -36 differential, which is just too unbalancing in a game that ends when someone gets to 100.
The other rules I try to avoid when possible are the “lead 2 of clubs, no blood (points) on first trick” rules, which are very common (standard even) and in some Hearts programs I’ve played, unavoidable. My preference is: left of dealer (“eldest hand”) leads whatever he feels like, and everybody follows suit or pitches whatever they feel like. That’s the way GOD MEANT TRICK TAKING GAMES TO BE PLAYED (if there were one, or only one, or whatever your religious inclination is or isn’t)! Lead, follow or pitch a side suit!
One “gimmick” I like to stick in there in lieu of the Jack of Diamonds as a way to lose points without (IMHO) unbalancing the game is what we call the “50-100” rule. If at the end of the deal your score comes to exactly 50 or 100, you lose 20 points (some variants, 25 points).
Unlike the Jack of Diamonds, which is sometimes “gifted” in a trick when diamonds are led, you have to really be paying attention to hit the 50 or 100 on the nose.