[whereagles]

So, we all know that in Walsh style

1♣ 1♦
1NT

may have 4 major, or even 4-4. But what do you think of sequences

1m 1♥
1NT

1m 1♥
2NT

Should it deny 4 spades, or not really? State why.

[ahydra]

I prefer to play this as simply "balanced" - i.e. may have 4 spades. You can use checkback to find the fit later. The benefit of this is that it describes the true nature of opener's hand clearly (e.g. 1C-1H-1S is then always 4-5 or 4144), but you might miss a spade fit when responder is weak with 4-5 majors. I guess XYZ-type systems can help here.

ahydra

[trevahound]

whereagles, on 2014-December-06, 16:38, said:

So, we all know that in Walsh style

1♣ 1♦
1NT

may have 4 major, or even 4-4. But what do you think of sequences

1m 1♥
1NT

1m 1♥
2NT

Should it deny 4 spades, or not really? State why.

I like it as balanced very much, but this is in a baby NT context, where the 1nt rebid will be 14-16, and with xyz. Responder needs much less to invite, and few 4/4 spade fits are lost. You do lose the 6-8 opp 14-16 4-4 spade fits, though. Everything has some sort of cost. Many of those are lost over the field when they start as str NT then pass. It's awfully valuable for responder to know if you're balanced where you fit in your NT ladder, or if you're unbalanced what your shape is.

I think the same roughly applies to the medium NT (12-14). I am much more agnostic about it when I'm playing a str NT -- no idea which is better over time, whether to bury my shape or to risk losing the spades on partscore deals. Guess that's another reason I so strongly prefer baby NT. If I didn't open 1nt, partner never needs to cater to that hand.

[mgoetze]

whereagles, on 2014-December-06, 16:38, said:

1m 1♥
1NT

1m 1♥
2NT

Should it deny 4 spades, or not really? State why.

I like the first to deny 4 spades and the 2nd not to, because in the first case it is too easy to miss a spade fit if responder is weak whereas it's not really a problem in the 2nd case, but I'm glad to not have this problem playing T-Walsh.

[Gerardo]

I prefer to bypass 4♠ in both, but I can see 4-4 fits lost over 1NT.

Over 2NT you can use your version of checkback with (almost?) every hand with 44 in the majors.

[nekthen]

Playing pick up bridge it denies 4 spades. I think it's better to show balance hand but only if I have check back agreed with a regular partner

[Giangibar]

As always, it's a matter of style. I see that most American players intend it as just balanced, with or without 4♠. I, as an Italian player, don't like this treatment at all: in my opinion, losing a 4-4 Major fit is too much of an issue. Besides, many of the top worldwide pairs in bridge (i.e. Bocchi-Madala, Lauria-Versace) play it "the Italian way", that is with 1NT denying 4♠. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I know that opener's rebid should clarify his shape and point range, and the 1NT rebid just does that, but it has many drawbacks:

1) you lose the 4-4 Spade fit, which is much worse than wrong-siding 1NT;
2) it's not always true that responder can use checkback to solve the issue. Sometimes responder is just too weak (i.e. 5-9 points and 44[32] or 44[41] shape) to relay;
3) sometimes 1♠ in the 4-3 Moysian fit is the best spot: that is, for example, when responder is 3541 and very weak;
4) by playing that 1NT denies 4♠, you can avoid ending up in awkward contracts when opener is minimum and responder is invitational. I often see this happening when opener is 3244 and responder is 4522 or 45[31]: opener bids 1m, responder bids 1♥, opener rebids 1NT and responder, with say 10-11 points, employs the XYZ convention to show a 45xx invitational hand by bidding 2♣ (forcing 2♦) and then 2♠. In this case you end up playing 2NT with minimal strength or 2♠ in the Moysian fit when you could have just stopper in 2♥ in the safer 5-2 fit, if you had known that 1NT denied 4♠.

[dicklont]

Playing 12-14NT we skip the spades routinely to show the nature of the 15-17 NT hand. You do need checkback of course.
I also remember a hand where my partner did not support my hearts with his 4 small and I didn't bother to checkback with my weak five card.
I suppose that memory is helped by the fact 3NT was the superior contract.

[fromageGB]

Giangibar, on 2014-December-07, 09:45, said:

2) it's not always true that responder can use checkbook to solve the issue.

A stereotypical American attitude, but maybe more likely a credit card these days ?

Sorry, couldn't resist, and I do admit that my Italian would not bear any scrutiny at all. I thoroughly agree with this post, and I too bid 1♠ when not playing transfer walsh.

[steve2005]

Regardless of your 1N opening range (I play both weak 12-14 and strong 15-17 depending on partner) I have been persuaded to bid 1♠ over 1♥. Reason is a killer missing a 4-4 ♠ fit especially in MP. Here p will fairly often not be able to checkback. Also may encourage p to bid 2N or 3N knowing ♠ is stopped.

As to 2N, that can bypass a ♠ suit as p will almost always be able to check back. Also, it right sides any NT contract which is much more likely after a 2N rebid.

[Giangibar]

fromageGB, on 2014-December-07, 10:31, said:

A stereotypical American attitude, but maybe more likely a credit card these days ?

Sorry, couldn't resist, and I do admit that my Italian would not bear any scrutiny at all. I thoroughly agree with this post, and I too bid 1♠ when not playing transfer walsh.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I wrote "checkback" but my Macbook automatically converted it into "checkbook"... I have now corrected my original post. Sometimes the autocorrect feature is cumbersome

[rmnka447]

Most Standard American players will rebid 1 ♠ holding 4 ♠s, so that a 1 NT rebid denies 4 ♠.

Playing a weak NT with most opponents playing strong NTs, it is normal to bypass ♠s to rebid 1 NT and show the 15-17 balanced hand. The opponents aren't bidding 1 ♠ with these hands anyway. It avoids the potential to wrong side NT contracts when you bid 1 ♠. And at times, it resolves bidding issues as to whether opener's initial minor suit bid is a real suit or not. So a 1 ♠ rebid insures opener has equal or longer length in the opening bid suit. Years ago, Checkback bids became a necessary extension to bidding over the 1 NT rebid to avoid missing major suit fits that Strong NTers found via Stayman and Jacoby Transfers. At the time, I recall virtually no Standard American bidders using this tool over their 1 NT rebids.

Eventually, a few top notch players started using checkbacks.

Then Marty Bergen, in a series of articles in his ongoing column on bidding in the ACBL Bulletin, covered the rationale and methodology of rebidding 1 NT with an unbid major and using checkbacks. The articles were edited and included in his landmark book on constructive bidding.

It was only after this publicizing that this approach began to be seen in much use at all among Standard American bidders. Still, many Standard bidders will use checkbacks, but still persist in rebidding 1 ♠ with 4 ♠s. There may be a good rationale for doing so. About 75% of hands opened 1 of a minor when playing Strong NTs are minmum range hands. So there's more concern about part score bidding with these hands.

[fromageGB]

rmnka447, on 2014-December-07, 21:01, said:

It was only after this publicizing that this approach began to be seen in much use at all among Standard American bidders. Still, many Standard bidders will use checkbacks, but still persist in rebidding 1 ♠ with 4 ♠s. There may be a good rationale for doing so. About 75% of hands opened 1 of a minor when playing Strong NTs are minmum range hands. So there's more concern about part score bidding with these hands.

There certainly is good rationale to do so; see Giangibar's post. It's funny how the weak NTers don't seem concerned about finding the right part score, though. I play 15/16 in a predominantly 12-14 field, and every week see the poor (but of course near average) results of playing 1NT when there is a major fit.

[mycroft]

I play weak NT in a strong NT field, and I also "don't worry about" finding the right part score, for most of the reasons above:

1) I need to get back to where the field is after 1m-1♥. If we float 1NT, so is the rest of the room, and while we'll have given more information than the field, there's not much we can do about it.
2) It is *much* more likely that responder has an INV or better hand after our strong NT than after their weak NT. So the number of times we "lose" playing 1NT instead of 2M (with the benefit of going with the field) is much less than when we get to play 2M and they're stuck in 1NT-float.
3) "They don't play 2-of-a-fit." It depends very strongly on whether we're going to *get to* play 1m-1M-2M even if we find it when the field is going 1NT-float (in fact, they're much more likely to be able to play 2M than we are, as they're going to get there after the opponents overcall NT and they scramble their way into 2-of-potentially-not-a-fit). If your field of 12-14ers don't push you out of 1m-1M-2M routinely, well, then of course you're going to get a great result opposite a bunch of 1NT-floats.
4) When you play an anti-field system, there are going to be times when the system gives you a zero, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's why the best card players in the room play the field system (better than the field); it's also why many of them are on the "limit these stupid systems" or "why can't we get back to 'bidding everyone can understand' and showcase the play" camp - because when you play *against* an anti-field system, there are going to be times when their system gives *you* a zero, and there's nothing you can do about it. But when you choose to do so, for whatever reason you choose to do so, you put that into the "minus" column, and if it's still "plus" to play it, you play it and get very philosophical about the system (wins and) losses.

[f2g]

bypassing spades is a dynamic process within the balanced hands; the criterion is "nt contracts to be played from the right side" so when you have a suitable hand which is likely have honors need to be protected from the lead or some cards like "AQ., KJ." etc. you should bypass spades.

[whereagles]

So I did a little sim here.

Opener 12-14 balanced with 4 spades and 2-3 hearts.
Responder with 4 or 5 hearts and 5+ hcp.

Considered that we're in a bad contract when:
1. HCP is less than 21. With 21+ 1NT usually makes and with inv+ checkback digs back the spade fit.
2. A spade fit is missed and there is no 5-3 heart fit to compensate.

After rolling 100 000 such hands I got:
- 2.44% of spade fit lost and 19 or less HCP
- 1.49% of spade fit lost and 20 HCP exactly

So you're in trouble in roughly 4% of the time you skip spades to rebid NT.

Figures change a lot for weak NT. They are:
- 0.58% of spade fit lost and 20 HCP exactly (you can't get 19 only).

Here you're basically out of the woods. For 2NT rebids you're totally out of the woods because you always have 18 + 5 = 23 H, which is statistically enough for 2NT.

The conclusion seems to be you can skip spades playing a weak NT system and also for 2NT rebids. There is a somewhat of a case for NOT SKIPPING playing a strong NT system.

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2014-December-08, 11:55, said:

When you play an anti-field system, there are going to be times when the system gives you a zero, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Agree 100%

mycroft, on 2014-December-08, 11:55, said:

That's why the best card players in the room play the field system (better than the field)

Disagree close to 100% They probably play the field system because that's what they learned and everybody else plays the same system. On any given hand, your system may give you a top or a zero, but if on average, your system gives you below average results, why are you playing that system??? So, presumably you expect your bridge sense, research and experience to design a system that gives better than average results. If you expect your system to give you better than average results, why would you let a few random bad results affect your system decisions?

[akwoo]

johnu, on 2014-December-08, 15:46, said:

Disagree close to 100% They probably play the field system because that's what they learned and everybody else plays the same system. On any given hand, your system may give you a top or a zero, but if on average, your system gives you below average results, why are you playing that system??? So, presumably you expect your bridge sense, research and experience to design a system that gives better than average results. If you expect your system to give you better than average results, why would you let a few random bad results affect your system decisions?

The reason is that your system might give you 55%, but your card play gives you 65%.

A top player is not aiming just for better than average; he or she is aiming for much better than average.

Of course things change when you're playing teams (either BAM or IMPs) or in a very very strong field where no one is 65%.

[mikeh]

As is usually the case, the people who advocate one style are quite good at pointing out the merits of their style but reveal their ignorance when they claim to set out the pros and cons of the opposite style. I am not suggesting any intention to mislead...this is just human nature. We tend to see reasons why we do what we like to do, and to ignore reasons for doing something else.

So it is with some sense of the irony inherent in my now posting on this subject that I write my views....the foregoing may well apply to me!

I strongly believe that at imp scoring one should bypass the 4 card spade suit to rebid 1N on all balanced hands in range for the call.

I am not going to discuss the jump to 2N, since I doubt that many players would not include balanced hands with 4 spades in that action: indeed, it seems to me to be so clearly correct to do so that it isn't worth discussing.

As for the rebid of 1N, others have outlined the downsides.

The worst is playing 1N on a 4-4 spade fit, due to responder being unable to move over 1N.

It is this that causes me to limit my preference for the style to imps. Even at imps one can occasionally play 1N going down when 2♠ makes, but this is very rare. For one thing, both opener and responder have balanced hands, especially if as responder you will tend to pull to 2♥ with a weak hand containing 5+ hearts. For another, the opps haven't bid so aren't likely to hold a long suit that they can run. For a third, there is a real advantage to being declarer, and that advantage is enhanced when one hasn't described one's hand. Finally, the hand has to play 2 tricks worse in notrump than it does in spades, and that will rarely happen.

It isn't that I love giving away frequent 1 imp swings, but in real life, at imps, that is basically what one is talking about....1 or 2 or maybe 3 imp swings (down 200 rather than 100 when red). It is very rare to fail in 1N and see 8 tricks available in spades. (Now, any style that quite often leads to +90 rather than +110, and does so more often than it leads to +120 rather than +110, is problematic at mps).

As against that, it isn't at all uncommon for both contracts to make the same number of tricks and so on occasion 1N makes and 2♠ fails...this happens even when spades aren't 4-1 with a spade lead making declarer very happy in 1N

The other main theoretical problem seems to be playing 2N when opener lacks both 4 spades and 3 hearts. I accept that this is a real issue, but again there seems to be a tendency to overstate matters. I have played the bypass method for many years, including in world championships, and have not ever, to my recollection, lost a swing on this layout. Yes, obviously it can happen, but bear in mind that when 2N fails, the 5-2 heart fit that the up-the-line bidders claim they would get to almost certainly doesn't happen.

Say you hold an invitational hand with 4=5 majors, and partner rebids 1N, denying spades. Are you passing? No. You are relaying to find if partner has 3 hearts. He bids, say, 2♦ (because you use 2-way), and now you bid 2♥, invite with 5 hearts. Why won't he bid 2N? Why does he have to pass 2♥? He has no idea how strong your hearts are and to pass with, say, Qx and find you have Jxxxx isn't going to work out very well. Even if he does pass, why do we infer that the 5-2, on often dubious trump, will play better than 2N? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I doubt that we could show much basis for saying opener should always pass 2♥ with a minimum and 2 hearts.


Ok, so much for the downsides of the bypass. What about the innumerable upsides?

1. Opening lead against 1N (or 3N or 6N etc) when leader has no clue about opener's spade length

2. Balancing over 1N passed around, compare knowing opener lacks spades to not knowing

3. Rebid problems for responder after 1m 1♥ 1♠ holding, say, 3=4=3=3 with 10xx in the unbid minor. Bid 1N, and opener has 4=2=5=2 and we play 1N wide open in a minor. This problem is at its worst when opener began with 1♣...now we can pull to 2♣ risking a 3-3, or 1N and see the diamonds run on us. My style has no problem: 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand...a 3 card minor preference is simple and safe.

4. Strain identification. Finding minor suit fits at a low level helps in lots of situations. Note that as is so often the case, the benefits from playing bypass aren't limited to when we rebid 1N! In particular, the benefits flow when we rebid 1♠ instead. Responder now knows we have an unbalanced hand: if we open 1♦ we hold 4=5 in the pointeds (or better) or the rare 4=1=4=4. If we open 1♣ we promise at least 9 black cards.

I have played both methods. I suspect most of the critics of bypass have played only the up the line style and have convinced themselves that the bypass method has too many costs, while (from the posts I have seen here) not understanding the nature of the benefits of the method.

That isn't to suggest that everyone opposed to the idea is ignorant of how it works...not at all. A good friend of mine, and a truly excellent player, got into a friendly but heated argument with me on the topic, and to this day he rejects bypass, even tho (he might plausibly claim 'because') he knows more about the game than I do and has a significantly better record than do I. However, those who have posted so far don't seem to recognize the real issues and so I don't see their arguments as persuasive.

[helene_t]

Playing a weak nt it is obvious to bypass, regardless of what the field does. Mikeh and mycroft give some reasons but to me the main reason is that with 15-17 you would often have an awkward third bid if you don't show your values with your second bid.

As for strong nt systems I won't be so bold. Both sides have compelling arguments and it is probably close. It could easily depend on other factors such as offshape nt rebid style, whether 4144 is still a possible shape for the 1s rebid, walsh or not, checkback methods and form of scoring.

I seem to recall from earlier discussions that forum standard was to bypass only with 4333.

I tried bypassing for a while and it made me frustrated but to be fair part of the reason was lack of partnership understanding. One disaster occured when partner thought my 1nt rebid promised four clubs (which it would if I would never bypass, and which is a case for bypassing since otherwise you tell opps not to lead a club).