Another 2236

[DavidKok]

The solution to having a lousy ace asking method in the middle of your slam investigation is not to make the method more complicated. I'd consider suggesting never bidding 4♣ instead - a 'does not exist' bid. Clearly suboptimal, but at least it prevents misunderstandings. And, as a side benefit, partner might be forced into learning slam bidding.

[P_Marlowe]

The solution to having a lousy ace asking method in the middle of your slam investigation is not to make the method more complicated. I'd consider suggesting never bidding 4♣ instead - a 'does not exist' bid. Clearly suboptimal, but at least it prevents misunderstandings. And, as a side benefit, partner might be forced into learning slam bidding.

Being quite often a Don Quichotte myself, being on my poor horse in search of the next fight against wind mills more often than I care to admit,

I agree with the above, but sometimes you need / should act like Sancho Pancha, a bit of pragmatism helps.

[pescetom]

Being quite often a Don Quichotte myself, being on my poor horse in search of the next fight against wind mills more often than I care to admit,

I agree with the above, but sometimes you need / should act like Sancho Pancha, a bit of pragmatism helps.

 

I like a windmill fight more than most (more than you or even mycroft, I think) but I'm pragmatic about 4♣.

I really like it as RKCB over a preempt, I can live with it as RKCB for diamonds (sometimes too low), it can be useful as Gerber over a 2NT reverse or even very occasionally over an NT opening... that's about it in my book.

A good meta-rule in any case is that 4♣ over 3NT to play is always natural but forcing.

 

.

[mw64ahw]

Coming late to the thread.

I would interpret 3♠ as a stopper ask for 3NT and then retrospectively showing a control and slam invitational following the 4♣ bid.

Rather than asking for keycards I prefer showing them with the first step indicating an even number with higher steps showing an odd number plus a (further) control.

In the above situation either party can start the SI sequence with a 4♦ bid showing an even number of keycards and then:

-North can show the K♥ with South then moving to 5♣ and in the process denying a ♦ control, AK♠ and 3KCs - PASS

-South bids 5♣ directly denying any further controls and less than 3KCs - PASS

For me this approach is superior to asking for keycards given that missing controls are identified prior to committing beyond 5 of the trump suit.

 

Also am slightly surprised that ♥ weren't rebid

[mw64ahw]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqh43dq64ckt9863&w=sj98765hj72daj9c7&n=skhakq965dt72caqj&e=st432ht8dk853c542&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c1s2hp3cp3sp3np4cp5d(1/4)p6c]399|300[/hv]h

Taking a further look - how did the play pan out as you go down only on a ♦ lead?

[AL78]

In which universe are cue bids alerted?

 

No jump, 5♦ typo of course

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqh43dq64ckt9863&w=sj98765hj72daj9c7&n=skhakq965dt72caqj&e=st432ht8dk853c542&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c1s2hp3cp3sp3np4cp4d(1/4)p6c]399|300[/hv]h

 

Blasting slam with two keycards missing (although South holds two, not one keycard) and three diamond losers looks to me like a bad idea. South cannot hold four keycards. Did North interpret South's 4♦ as a control rather than one keycard?

[jillybean]

Taking a further look - how did the play pan out as you go down only on a ♦ lead?

We actually made 6♣, another pair bid and made 6♥. The result was ok, the auction was a train wreck.

[jillybean]

Blasting slam with two keycards missing (although South holds two, not one keycard) and three diamond losers looks to me like a bad idea. South cannot hold four keycards. Did North interpret South's 4♦ as a control rather than one keycard?

North knew South has 2 keycards, the auction posted is incorrect and I gave up trying to correct it. Having 2-3 diamond losers was a blind spot.