Inverted, IGNORING the search for 4-4 majors fit.

[blubayou]

At the Donna mentoring session in early December '20,   I sat with my Kaplan-Sheinwold pard  ShawnT and held this facing his 1 Diamond opener:  A743, A4, AK[sixth], x. We had an all too brief fun auction on the way to the diamond grand that i 'knew' was good if not icy already:  1D, 2!D [inverted raise]; 3!C, 3S [notrump-probe, usually]: 3NT, 4H [the ace]; PASS  (maiking five  when nobody got the taps going in hearts).   If we were not on stage in a mentor session, I surely would have RKC int 7D on my first rebid - a habit i vow to break completely in 2021.   
    During the postmortem one thing mentioned was that showing 4CM rules out using a minor raise (whether strong or weak or in-between?).   Kibbs said it and the hostess said "amen"  to this.  I let this sleeping dog lie as I had just smart-mouthed myself into a stupid contract with shawn's unexpected help, AND my other resolution for the coming year happens to be "Don't teach the teacher, if it means direct confrontation" 
   But I put it to you who will see this: is it not correct to bid toward a minor slam you already know is good for 6 if not seven, without bowing at the "Stayman Altar"?
    P.S.   in K-S, a weak notrump system,  Shawn's opening will never be a balanced 13  and SUPPOSEDLY also not a slightly shapey pile of garbage.

[Masse24]

   But I put it to you who will see this: is it not correct to bid toward a minor slam you already know is good for 6 if not seven, without bowing at the "Stayman Altar"?

Stayman?

[jcreech]

Obviously, Jock miswrote when he used the conventional name of Stayman.  It was still a reference to kowtowing to 4-4 major fits, whether the auction starts with 1NT and Stayman is used, or 1 - 1 as so many would woodenly bid the hand referenced above. 

Bridge is a game of decision points and choices.  As a player, I would not mind either approach.  You can always bid the diamond slam, but if you have a 4-4 spade fit, unless you have the filling honors, slam in either strain is going to have its challenges.  As a teacher, I prefer showing respect for the major suit fit, partly because if there is a fit, it becomes easier to ask the questions I need answers to, and partly because a long side suit can mean extra tricks in the major-suit contract.  That being said, I would still opt for diamonds for the contract on this hand because unless partner started with a 4-4-3-2 strong NT, he has 4 or more diamonds; that means a 10+ card fit and a high risk of a diamond being ruffed in spades.

This a hand that begs for lower level asks below 4NT.  Control asking bids, such as what they have in strong club systems, or at the least something like minorwood, redwood, or kickback as an alternative RKC with minors.

[kenberg]

I was watching that session and I recall thinking the 2 call as reasonable. It would be good to have the hand in  front of us for discussion.

It's true that after 1 - 2 it is virtually impossible to fond the 4-4 fit unless you have some special agreements that few have. So there needs to be a good reason to give up on finding the spade fit. being confident of the diamond slam is such a reason. After 1 - 1 you could have a problem if, as will often be the case, partner does not have four spades. Maybe he then rebids in NT. Or maybe he raises 1 on three cards. How do you the tell pard: "Hey, we belong in at least 6 "?

High level pairs who have been playing together for years might well have an answer to this question. But the rest of us don't. So we look at the hand and we say "Well, yeah, possibly we have an 8 card fit and possibly the hand should be played in but right now I see a massive fit and I am going to set as trump and then explore for whether we a belong in 6 or 7. If I find that I have to sign off in 5 when that and 4 are both makin, that's too bad but I think this slight risk is worth it as a trade off for the advantages of setting trump now."


I am very confident that this general philosphy is correct. As to whether it applies in Jock's particular case, I recall thinking it reasonable but I don't recall the details of the hand.

[Masse24]

I remember that auction, it was not a thing of beauty. Mostly, however, because of where you ended. It was a combination of you knowing what was standard and not doing it, and your partner not knowing the convention you were playing.

Inverted Minors with a four-card major is decidedly non-standard. I’ve heard of it but choose not to explore it because so few play it. I like vanilla. The continuations to find a 4-4 major fit would require much work and discussion. So when I hear my partner respond 2m to my 1m, I know he does not have a major.

As far as whether it is “correct to bid toward a minor slam you already know is good for six if not seven without bowing at the Stayman altar.” Yes and no.

I have no problem with non-standard actions if you believe it is the best way to proceed. But I would not have done it with your hand. I would have responded 1 and, over partner’s 2 rebid (I think that’s the hand he had, yes?) you rebid 4sF and off you go. But I am okay with your initial action—and I understand it.

Just not my choice. 

[blubayou]

thanks for understanding that a person might want to play 6 or 7 diamonds in SPITE of a pard having 4 spades across from this Axxx,  while not exactly saying  that you would avoid 6 spades if there was such a fit.  (and i willl never ever be daring spade grand on 8 trumps when my half of them is Axxx)
    an ironic 'aside'  just occurred to me today tues 12/15:  Shawn and I play my own miniroman variant where 2D shows 3-suiter MISSING ONE BLACK SUIT!:(  Had he done this, auction would be a  cakewalk to seven:
2D                                                                     2NT (range & shape ask)
3H (3rd step=clubs, not spades, and maximum)    4NT
5D  (BW)                                                             7D.
                   sigh