[Bbradley62]

Too bad there isn't a way, over 3♠, for North to quickly and specifically find out whether South holds and or all of ♠AQ, ♥A, ♣A.

---

By the way... how did North progress from showing second round control of clubs (see explanation of 5♣) to denying it (see 6♦)?

[manudude03]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-08, 16:17, said:

Too bad there isn't a way, over 3♠, for North to quickly and specifically find out whether South holds and or all of ♠AQ, ♥A, ♣A.
By the way... how did North progress from showing second round control of clubs (see explanation of 5♣) to denying it (see 6♦)?

no AK means not 1st and 2nd round control (11- 8421 pts), not "not 1st and not 2nd round control" (3- 8421 pts). That's a lot of "not"s in that last sentence

[Bbradley62]

manudude03, on 2015-February-08, 18:43, said:

no AK means not 1st and 2nd round control (11- 8421 pts), not "not 1st and not 2nd round control" (3- 8421 pts). That's a lot of "not"s in that last sentence

Look how each of those two bids (5♣ and 6♦) describes the club honors: the first says ♣K; no ♣A and the second says ♣Q; no ♣AK. The first clearly means 4-7 8421pts (because it's counting the singleton as second-round control). The second doesn't mean 3- because 3- could be 0, and it certainly seems to be trying to say that there's something there.

[manudude03]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-08, 18:53, said:

Look how each of those two bids (5♣ and 6♦) describes the club honors: the first says ♣K; no ♣A and the second says ♣Q; no ♣AK. The first clearly means 4-7 8421pts (because it's counting the singleton as second-round control). The second doesn't mean 3- because 3- could be 0, and it certainly seems to be trying to say that there's something there.

Just seems like a slightly cryptic way of saying 4-7 either way, the 3- part I mentioned was the possibility that it denied having either honour. Q, no AK is basically just 2-11 8421 pts (which is still odd given that 5C was 4-11.