Blackwood is for Sissies?

K Q 7
Q J 6 4 2
K J 6 5
2
2 10 6
A 10 9 8 7 5
A 10 9 8 4 7 3
Q J 10 8 7 4 A K 9 5
A J 9 8 5 4 3
K 3
Q 2 Opening lead: A of diamends
6 3 Vul: Both

WestNorthEastSouth
Pass 1 Pass 1
2 2 3 4
Pass 6 Pass Pass
Dbl All pass
Last fall, I recall offering a similiar situation asking rhetorically, "Blackwood is for sissies?", drawing on the title of Art Linkletter's book, "Old Age is not for Sissies." But slam missing three aces? Now, that's getting aggressive. In any event, it's not the first time I've come across disdain for Blackwood. And I'm referring to a clear opportunity, not to those occasions when it might be interpreted as quantitative and thus passed. You might also note that this is a plain case of North bidding the same values twice. With that aceless 12-hcp hand, he certainly has a rock-bottom minimum opener if ever there was one. It's true that he hasn't yet announced spade support, but he should see that as a matter of luck, not reason for going up two more levels. And not even luck, really. You might note that had those been three small spades in exchange for one ace -- one hcp less -- his support would have been just as good. So much for jumping two more levels on the basis of that spade support. What he's got in spades, he doesn't have elsewhere. Minimum is minimum.
So a little paradoxically, having started suggesting that spurning Blackwood, when the bid was unambigously available, was unwise, I'm now compelled to say that Blackwood is not recommended here, not because there's a better way to explore for slam but because slam is certainly not indicated on the bidding! North opens his rock-bottom hand, gets a one-round forcing bid of a spade from his partner and so bids his second suit. Now South, having heard that minimum, says substantially, okay, let's go for game in spades. North should certainly respect that decision, having bid all his values. Both partners have already bid all their values. A strong presumption of slam potential should precede Blackwood. That potential should be indicated by bids leading up to the 4 level, which is certainly not the case here. Here, one can only say that at least Blackwood would have saved one level of overbid. Or would it? Suppose they were playing Roman Key Card and the aceless Blackwooder read his partner for four aces! But, naw, that couldn't have happened, could it?
In any event, skidding into 5 spades would have been a right nice board, since the opponents can make 5 clubs with ease. You might get by undoubled, in fact, as many did, which would have represented a saving of 450 points. Not bad for a simple detour that doesn't cost a thing once you've decided to go beyond 4 spades.
So I can only beseech all upcoming players: Don't dismiss your early lessons. Yes, you learn that none are inviolate, that there are exceptions to any "rules" or guiding principles. It's a major part of your increasing skill as a player to note reasons for going against the grain of early lessons and to employ them as you gain experience. But don't dismiss them in toto when you get six months of experience behind you. Unless you had a really wretched teacher, none are totally useless; none should be disdained.
If I observed a novice who habitually drew trump too early and another who habitually drew it too late, I'd have far more hope for the former than the latter. For I would think a player who draws trump too early will over time begin to see why he should have delayed that task for a few rounds while he attended to other business. But a novice who feels he has moved beyond that early lesson -- Getcher trump out! -- will come across as being without an anchor, leading to rather haphazard and directionless play. The same holds for covering an honor, second hand low and all the rest.
I'll give another reason why I would advise keeping these early lessons in mind, and that is that they give you something to reason from, to deviate from when you perceive a reason for doing so. Dismissing these lessons, well, I can only use the above term, would leave a player without anchor and tend to invite capricious play.
And I'd just like to say one more thing: Bridge columnists are to a man geared to writing for fairly skilled players. There's no prestige in writing for novices. So they're not going to be offering a column where they show that West should have gotten his trump out, or East should have covered an honor. They will commonly, however, have a column where one has to go against the grain of a common rule, as for instance, give a sluff and a ruff, which is traditionally the most bonehead of plays a defender can make. So please don't be misled by these columns into thinking these basic rules are old hat and for beginners only.
You can be sure that going second hand low, covering an honor, drawing trump early, etc, are still part of experts' repertory, very much a part of it. But columnists don't write about such cases because those plays are taken for granted, and not the type of hand that draws their interest.