[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-March-11, 15:58, said:

F2F without screens and below 3NT, the universe faithful to WBF alerting policy (a large part of the globe).
Anywhere else, the universe of ethical and meaningful bridge.

I won't argue, I'm not going to try to find and read the alert regulations
I have been told many times not to alert Cue bids or doubles, so I don't.

"Cue bids are self alerting"

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-March-12, 10:59, said:

I won't argue, I'm not going to try to find and read the alert regulations
I have been told many times not to alert Cue bids or doubles, so I don't.

"Cue bids are self alerting"

I don't understand why you expect it to be difficult to find and read NZ alert regulations
But I too should have done so before commenting, sorry.
Because they do indeed consider Cue bids of opponent's suit as self-alerting (29.2.4 Self-alerting calls defined), like ACBL and unlike WBF or EBU or FIGB.
So in NZ it would be incorrect to alert 3♠ (and risky for opponents to ask for an explanation, even though it is not obvious).

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2023-March-11, 14:44, said:

4♣ is almost exclusively used as ace asking here so I am up against local conventions, and frequent misunderstandings.

Do your partners ever comment on these type of hands too? Do they realise it's an unplayable system when these types of hands come up, or do they simply not know there are other ways to investigate controls and put up with the fact they often lose the first two tricks?

[edit] for reference, wasn't meaning this as a way of seeing if your partners are clueless, but just that whenever I thinking about playing a new convention, the first question is how you handle bids that it replaces - i.e., in this case, how you support clubs in all the auctions you need to. So was wondering whether they learnt an answer to that question themselves that we/you're not aware of. Surely these hands must frustrate them too.

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2023-March-11, 13:53, said:

You're more enthusiastic about the (unalerted) 3♠ bid than I am, then.

Looks fine to me (but we've been around the block on alertability of these bids before, and I assume it is in Italy and not in ACBL/NZ). "bid 3NT with a stopper". "cancel that, it was actually a cue for a club slam". Not sure about the KC response to what was clearly a club raise (even if you're not a "BabyFood"ite), but you know... [Edit: P_Marlowe brings up minorwood. Okay, I'll take minorwood. But it's still a club raise.]

bluenikki, on 2023-March-11, 14:13, said:

In KS, why not play that double shows strong NT? Pass shows minimum with bad long suit.

Because we like support doubles. Pass strongly implying the strong NT and rebid the long suit (if at all safe) works for us better, and more often, than not being able to show the quality of support. I did say it's not standard.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2023-March-11, 14:44, said:

I'd like to write on top of our card "No jumps in a GF auction" unless 1M 2NT 4M, I've opened on crap.

4♣ is almost exclusively used as ace asking here so I am up against local conventions, and frequent misunderstandings.

Ok, ..., same here. Luckily I have partner who let me stick to 4NT as only KC ask, but this does not help you:

If they insist on 4m as always being KC, make the KC conditional, this should be an acepptable compromise:

First step says you are dead, the usual responses start with the 2nd step.
In your given auction South would bid 4D, but this would not show 1/4 but min.
If they still are interested in asking for KCs, 4H would be the KC ask repeated,
you still have 3 steps (1/4,0, 2 without Q),
which should cover the possible answers a min hand gives.

You still can sign of in 4NT after a min response.

I tried to find a writeup internet page, ..., I am not using this, so I am not really
familar with it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[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]

DavidKok, on 2023-March-15, 01:20, said:

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]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-March-15, 01:42, said:

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]

jillybean, on 2023-March-10, 12:21, said:

---

h

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

[AL78]

jillybean, on 2023-March-11, 14:06, said:

In which universe are cue bids alerted?

No jump, 5♦ typo of course

---

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]

mw64ahw, on 2023-March-16, 03:32, said:

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]

AL78, on 2023-March-16, 04:36, said:

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.