Posted 2012-June-29, 10:53
I would underline a concept here.
4♦ was a call that clearly was not calculated to assist in seeking a grand and was not particularly descriptive other than generally quantitative. For that reason, passing 4♥ is warranted by another concern. Even if you can scrounge up a reason for believing that slam might be still making somehow, you might not end up with a slam bonus for bidding the slam, as the risk of UI is huge here. When you make what is essentially a LTTC bid, any further call after that should be based upon a hand with CLEAR continuing slam interest, IMO, as a matter of insurance for yourself and your reputation. Even if the theory merits LTTC...bid again, the practical side of the Rules argues against that sequence ever occurring.
If you contemplate LTTC...bid as possible, I would suggest very strictly defining that sequence and even including this within the definition of the LTTC bid. "What's 4♦?" "That either is a slam bump of the start of a two-bid sequence showing a diamond control and ______________."
"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.