mikeh, on 2011-September-28, 00:06, said:
Ken 'addresses' the "ease of auction" issue by assuming that his partners always bid 3N over his 3♥, allowing him to bid 4♣.
meanwhile, back in the real world, many players actually raise 3♥ to 4♥, thinking all the while that their KJxxx in clubs weren't working because their partners felt that AQx was inadequate support to ever show.
In the same real world, after opener has shown his AQx by bidding 3♣ at his 3rd turn, what's the worst that could happen?
If partner bids 3♥, we can force with 3♠, having already shown at least 5=4=3 in the other suits, so there is no danger that partner will suddenly play us for spade length. If that's too radical an idea, bid 4♣ as an unambiguous slam move.
If partner doesn't bid 3♥, there is at least some chance he'll bid 3♦ and we have an easy 3♥ on our way to exploring 7♣.
If he bids 3N, we can bid 4♥, showing our 0=6=4=3 shape.
Far too many posters have answers to these problems that seem, to me at least, to be influenced by their knowledge of the 2 hands. In the real world, holding AJxx Qx Qx KJxxx, and having already gf'd and bid 2♠ (I'd have bid 2N, but effectively there is no difference) why on earth would an unlimited hand now decide that this high card minimum was a 'power raise' in hearts and cuebid 4♦ on Qx???????? I'm sorry, but who really bids this way unless playing Ken's book?
I know Ken has his detailed slam bidding style and I am sure it works great on many hands...however, it is not exactly standard, so posting answers based on a method played by maybe a handful of people in the world won't advance us much here.
And absent his idiosyncratic agrrements, to think that we are getting 'ease of auction' by bidding ♥/♦/♥ is mystifying to me
Are you missing the fact that 6
♣ seems odds-on already?
If deciding upon a proper course when leaping to 6
♣ right now is a viable alternative, I think you have space available to unwoind this at will. Even if partner would not cue 4
♦ (which I believe not to be a matter of cuebidding style but hand evaluation), you have no problems when partner bids a simple 4
♥, as you are going to slam anyway. So, what is the problem?!?!?
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
Help
)