[mike777]

Per a recent MikeH post and other posters in the past, do you bypass bidding your 4 card spade suit at the one level in some of your auctions when balanced?

Are there auctions when you are concerned about finding the spade suit later? Invitational auctions?

[DavidKok]

Yes, I bypass them. I have gadgets to find most 4-4 spade fits, but there are exceptions when responder is weak and has specific shape (4=5=x=y max 11hcp opposite 4=2=(43) 12-13). Most systems have more exceptions that slip through the cracks, my notrump agreements with Dutch Doubleton solve most issues for me. What remains is just the cost of doing business. T-Walsh also has good ways to address this, but is a bit behind on other hand types.

As mike said I think it is a clear winner, and I would not want to play a different style. I also bypass spades in standard, the gadgets are just icing on the cake.

[awm]

Nope, we bid up the line. I like to find my spade fits on hands where responder is weak (including 4-3 fits at the one-level). In my style a 1NT rebid can have singleton in responder's major (hearts in this auction) anyway, so it's not like rebidding 1NT makes it easier for us to retreat to 2♥ on five or blast 4♥ on a bad six card suit (neither of which we would normally do).

[jillybean]

This only applies to strong nt bidders?

[bluenikki]

mike777, on 2025-September-04, 17:31, said:

Per a recent MikeH post and other posters in the past, do you bypass bidding your 4 card spade suit at the one level in some of your auctions when balanced?

Are there auctions when you are concerned about finding the spade suit later? Invitational auctions?

Keep in mind that after 1x - 1♥ - ? , it's odds against responder's both having spades and being balanced enough to pass 1NT. Short odds, but against.

I computed it years ago, but have lost the spreadsheet.

[mw64ahw]

Nope
Over 1♣ playing transfers
1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 1N 4♠ limited with 1♠ being the relay

1♣ - 1♦
1♥ - 1♠
1N - 2♥ non-invitational 4♠5♥

Playing an unbalanced♦ I delay finding the ♠ fit with an invitational hand, otherwise I rely on opener to tell me whether they are short in ♠ on their 2nd bid i.e.
1♦-1♥ either/both Majors
..1♠ 3/4♠ may have ♥
..1N 3-suited, 3/4♥ short ♠ limited

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-September-05, 04:33, said:

This only applies to strong nt bidders?

No.

The shape interference is also relevant for peoble, who play a weak NT system.
We play a wide range NT rebid, and would even bypass 44 in both majors.

[WasWinM]

To the bypassers, do you make exceptions if partner’s holdings might be better protected from his side in nt?
Kxxx, xxx, Axx, Axx
1c-1h still 1nt?

[DavidKok]

Right now you're showing 14 cards with 11 hcp, I'm not sure that's the best example.

More generally though: no. Show shape. Finding the right strain and the right levels is much more important than protecting siding, especially with such a nice descriptive notrump ladder bid available.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-September-05, 12:40, said:

No.

The shape interference is also relevant for peoble, who play a weak NT system.
We play a wide range NT rebid, and would even bypass 44 in both majors.

Assuming 12-14nt what is your 1nt rebid?

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2025-September-05, 19:52, said:

Assuming 12-14nt what is your 1nt rebid?

We play 11-14, but this is the same as 12-14.
Our rebid is 15-19, making the 1NT rebid semiforcing, responder can pass, but will rarely do.
The adv. is, that responder can respond a bit lighter without fearing a 2NT jump rebid, those
lighter hand can pass the 1NT rebid.
It also frees the 2NT jump rebid by opener, we use it to show the Bridge World death hand.

Both things reduce the need to open marginal hands with 2C.

The disadv. is, that you need to have some art. followups after the 1NT rebid, but my guess is,
if you play xyz you will find it not much different / complex.
The structure we use can be found in a book written by Ron Klinger, but I think the Crowhurst
Convention is also a valid option, among others.

[mikeh]

Since it was a post of mine that prompted this thread, here’s my view. But a caveat first. In my established partnerships I play transfer Walsh so the issue doesn’t arise in auctions that begin 1C. Second, in my main partnership, we play an unbalanced 1D opening so, again, the problem doesn’t arise. Thus my current and recent experience on this issue is with less frequent partners. But I did play this bypass method before adopting T-Walsh and still insist on it with my infrequent partners.

The only downside I’ve ever observed is missing a 4=4 spade fit to play in 1N.

It’s not a problem if responder has invitational values, since it’s trivial to find the 4=4 fit if responder has the values to invite or force to game. Our methods involve xyz plus using a 2S rebid as precisely 4=4 invitational.

But responder has to pass with weaker hands so the fit will be missed.

The first time I persuaded a friend of mine, an expert player, to use the bypass approach he was very reluctant precisely because of this fear. Sure enough, we soon had a board where he rebid 1N and we missed the 4=4 fit. The opening lead was a spade away from Q10xx….had partner rebid 1S I had enough to raise and 2S would be down 1 while we made 120.

Ok, that’s unusual. Most of the time 2S will make at least as many tricks as 1N…but note that defending 1N has s much easier when the defenders know opener can’t have 4S. So while the downside is real….imo bypass is a net loser on these hands….the loss is rarely that 1N fails and that 2S makes….it’s not actually always a loser and the loss is very small at imps.

Meanwhile there are gains that are, in combination, imo more frequent than the losses and far more important.

Here’s one:

You hold xxx KQxx xxx Kxx.

Partner opens 1C and rebids 1S over your 1H. Your rebid, please?

You bid 1N and find partner with KQxx xx xx AQJxx. They run 5 diamonds and take their major aces.

You decide that next time you’ll bid 2C. But this time opener has KQxx Jxx AJx Qxx.

How on earth can responder know what to do with these kinds of hands when he has heard two bids from partner and has no idea whether opener has 3 or 4 or 5 clubs? Don’t worry about 4=6 hands…opener won’t pass 1N.

Thus, while missing a 4=4 fit is a (modest) downside with bypass, having to guess whether to bid 1N or 2C is at the very least as much of a problem.

But it’s not the main problem, especially if one’s game is primarily imp oriented. There the problem is far more serious…bidding minor suit games and slams.

It’s not the bypass hands that are important here. It’s a mistake to focus on just the balanced hands. It’s the nbalanced hands where bypass gains….the hands where opener rebids 1S and, by doing so, immediately shows at least 4=5 blacks.

When responder has a good club fit and a good hand, knowing early on that opener has shape significantly improves your slam bidding. Less frequent but still important is finding 5C when 3N is problematic.

This is most useful after a 1C opening, since 1D 1H 1S doesn’t promise 5D…opener may be 4=1=4=4. But even here, the knowledge that opener has shape can be very useful.

When one method has one rare downside, that is actually a winner on a significant minority of hands, and offers two upsides, where there are almost never any losses and where the upsides can be very powerful….I have to wonder whether the main reason other good players don’t bypass isn’t really due to an unwillingness to try something new.

Personally, that unwillingness has occasionally delayed my adoption of new ideas. For example, I was very reluctant to give up negative doubles after 1C (1D).

But I finally agreed to play transfers there, and am now convinced that transfers are more effective than a negative double. I suspect that those who argue against bypass have not played bypass very much, if at all.

[pescetom]

Makes a lot of sense to me.

I am handicapped by playing in a country where up the line is still very much the rule even at advanced level and potential partners find the idea of bypassing incomprehensible.
Say I did find a partner willing to experiment, is anyone with experience of bypassing generous enough to summarize exactly how things change, assuming a basically natural 2/1 system with strong NT, minor openings 4+ card diamonds and 2+ card clubs, XYZ?

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2025-September-07, 12:51, said:

Makes a lot of sense to me.

I am handicapped by playing in a country where up the line is still very much the rule even at advanced level and potential partners find the idea of bypassing incomprehensible.
Say I did find a partner willing to experiment, is anyone with experience of bypassing generous enough to summarize exactly how things change, assuming a basically natural 2/1 system with strong NT, minor openings 4+ card diamonds and 2+ card clubs, XYZ?

• On 1m-1♦/1♥; 1NT you may still have a 4-4 spade fit. This means that on auctions like 1m-1♥; 1NT-2♦*; 2♥-? I would play responder's 2♠ as only showing 4=4, and require raising the hearts to 3♥ to confirm the fit with five. Note that this even applies to the Walsh auction 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♦; ?, where we might potentially have a fit in either major suit (opener balanced with a 4cM, responder 5(+)♦4(+)M GF).
  
• I don't like XYZ here, and prefer XYNT. Mikeh already gave the best example: ♠xxx, ♥KQxx, ♦xxx, ♣Kxx on 1♣-1♥; 1♠. Since we bypass spades with balanced hands this is unbalanced, showing 5(+)♣4(+)♠ (or, in my system, possibly 4=1=4=4 - but don't worry about the exception). It would be really nice to bid 2♣ now as an offer to play. With XYZ you have no way to do this.
  
• Similar but more subtle, I also don't like XYZ on 1♦-1♥; 1♠. This time we are able to sign off in 2♦ by bidding 2♣ and passing the transfer completion, but in my opinion this just passes the buck to opener. Opener can still have a strong hand, say ♠AKxx, ♥-, ♦KQTxxx, ♣Axx which glows up on hearing support for diamonds (and not a dreaded return to hearts by responder), but if you play XYZ here you're stuck on 2♣. Complete the transfer and risk getting passed in 2♦ when game or even diamond slam is on, reject the transfer and get too high when responder had an invitational hand with long hearts. Instead I prefer 2♣ as 4SGF and 2♦ as a natural offer to play here, which incidentally also saves a step on the game forcing auctions.
  
• The biggest change though is going to be responder's (increase in) ability to evaluate the hand, without changing the meaning of the second and third round rebids. When opener has an unbalanced hand and shows two suits at the 1-level, responder is in a much better position to evaluate the mesh of the hands and make good decisions between NT and a trump suit (in particular, a minor suit) and between upgrading or downgrading close calls. It also helps with minor suit games and slams as mikeh said, along with more accurate shape description on the third round, which otherwise might not be in the picture at all.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-07, 13:21, said:

• On 1m-1♦/1♥; 1NT you may still have a 4-4 spade fit. This means that on auctions like 1m-1♥; 1NT-2♦*; 2♥-? I would play responder's 2♠ as only showing 4=4, and require raising the hearts to 3♥ to confirm the fit with five. Note that this even applies to the Walsh auction 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♦; ?, where we might potentially have a fit in either major suit (opener balanced with a 4cM, responder 5(+)♦4(+)M GF).
  
• I don't like XYZ here, and prefer XYNT. Mikeh already gave the best example: ♠xxx, ♥KQxx, ♦xxx, ♣Kxx on 1♣-1♥; 1♠. Since we bypass spades with balanced hands this is unbalanced, showing 5(+)♣4(+)♠ (or, in my system, possibly 4=1=4=4 - but don't worry about the exception). It would be really nice to bid 2♣ now as an offer to play. With XYZ you have no way to do this.
  
• Similar but more subtle, I also don't like XYZ on 1♦-1♥; 1♠. This time we are able to sign off in 2♦ by bidding 2♣ and passing the transfer completion, but in my opinion this just passes the buck to opener. Opener can still have a strong hand, say ♠AKxx, ♥-, ♦KQTxxx, ♣Axx which glows up on hearing support for diamonds (and not a dreaded return to hearts by responder), but if you play XYZ here you're stuck on 2♣. Complete the transfer and risk getting passed in 2♦ when game or even diamond slam is on, reject the transfer and get too high when responder had an invitational hand with long hearts. Instead I prefer 2♣ as 4SGF and 2♦ as a natural offer to play here, which incidentally also saves a step on the game forcing auctions.
  
• The biggest change though is going to be responder's (increase in) ability to evaluate the hand, without changing the meaning of the second and third round rebids. When opener has an unbalanced hand and shows two suits at the 1-level, responder is in a much better position to evaluate the mesh of the hands and make good decisions between NT and a trump suit (in particular, a minor suit) and between upgrading or downgrading close calls. It also helps with minor suit games and slams as mikeh said, along with more accurate shape description on the third round, which otherwise might not be in the picture at all.

Thanks very much.
I presume also 0. Bid 1N after 1m 1R with spades and a balanced hand
When I say XYZ I do mean XYZN, assuming that by this you mean the convention applies equally after XYN.
I have played this for years and FWIW have never been passed in 2♦ when game is on, let alone slam... maybe just lucky.
Point 4 at IMPs is what entices me.

[DavidKok]

With XYNT I mean a variant of two-way checkback that applies on the auctions 1X-1Y; 1NT (there's 6). By contrast, XYZ applies on all auctions 1X-1Y; 1Z (there's 10).

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-07, 15:02, said:

With XYNT I mean a variant of two-way checkback that applies on the auctions 1X-1Y; 1NT (there's 6). By contrast, XYZ applies on all auctions 1X-1Y; 1Z (there's 10).

I mean playing the same convention (with the obvious considerations about opener's strength) over both 1X 1Y; 1Z and 1X 1Y; 1N, with no residual versions of Checkback or NMF or whatever. I thought that was fairly standard by now, it certainly is around here.