Thanks for the link. I wasn't able to find the Donaldson review, but I did find reviews by Watson, Hansen and Goeller. The line covered in that book, however, is 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5, which seems dubious to me (Burgess also shares this opinion in his book 'The Slav'). 

This is slightly offtopic but I couldn't resist including the following excellent survey of 1.d4 Repertoire Books: http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2008/01/1d4-repertoire-books.ht....

Thanks kylemeister, that was the move-order I was referring to when I mentioned 3.c4. 

Sorry for not being clearer in my original post.

I think dxc4 was meant.

Play might continue 4.Nc3 Nf6 when the position could also have been reached from this more common move order:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxc4

Hi,

Is this rare version of the Slav an interesting alternative for White? Does it offer some chances of an advantage whilst retaining a large dose of surprise value? 

I noticed that in 'The Queen's Bishop Attack Revealed' by Plaskett, James gives one game with 3.c4, stating that Black should equalise but it's not as innocuous as it looks. 

Edit: That's the move-order 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 c6 3.c4, an alternative move-order to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Bg5.