[wraysford]

Hello

I would welcome views on whether and when opener should bypass a 4 card major to rebid 1NT. Example (playing strong NT and 5 card majors and 2 way check back):

S K. J. 9. 4 H A. 8. 3 D Q 2. C K. 7. 5. 4

Bidding: 1C - 1H

1S. or 1NT??
Thank you.

[pescetom]

This was discussed quite recently on BW, unfortunately I don't remember the article name.

[helene_t]

Hi Wraysford, welcome to the forum!

The way to describe this hand is KJ94 A83 Q2 K754, or, alternatively
♠ KJ94
♥ A83
♦ Q2
♣ K754

This makes it easier to read.

Standard is to rebid 1♠ but there is no concensus.

The modern trend is to play transfer Walsh. Partner bids 1♦ tgo transfer to hearts, and you accept the transfer. Whether this promises 4-card heart support, or it promises a 12-14 balanced hand, or it could be either, is a questions of partnership agreement. But in either case, partner can now show his 4-card spade suit if he has one, so the fit doesn't run away.

[blackshoe]

It's really a matter of partnership style.

Back in Goren's day, the rule was "four card suits up the line", and for a lot of people it still is. But others think it's more important to show your hand type as early as possible. You have a balanced hand that's too weak to open 1NT playing strong NT, so you open in a suit. When partner bids 1♥ you rebid 1NT, showing your weak NT hand. Since you play two way checkback, if responder has at least invitational values, you shouldn't lose the spade fit, if there is one. If responder is weak with both majors, you will, because he's probably going to pass 1NT. That can be bad at matchpoints, but it's only one board. At IMPs it's less a problem.

An advantage to the "show your hand type" style is that responder will know you have an unbalanced hand if you rebid 1♠.

[awm]

wraysford, on 2019-December-26, 11:22, said:

Hello

I would welcome views on whether and when opener should bypass a 4 card major to rebid 1NT. Example (playing strong NT and 5 card majors and 2 way check back):

♠KJ94
♥A83
♦Q2
♣K754

Bidding: 1C - 1H

1S. or 1NT??
Thank you.

This is very much a place for partnership agreement. If you frequently bypass spades to rebid notrump, you want partner to check back for a spade fit on hands like ♠AQxx ♥KQxx ♦xxx ♣Qx rather than just bidding 3NT (as he would if you don't bypass spades). It also makes a difference as to when partner should revert to clubs on a weak hand (if you normally bypass spades, then the 1♠ rebid promises 5+♣ and 1NT could be 3♣, whereas if you normally rebid spades then 1♠ could be 3♣ and 1NT promises 4-5♣).

Advantages to agreeing to bypass spades:
1. The 1NT rebid allows responder to sign off in a five-card heart suit with certainty of 2-3 card support (assuming you don't rebid 1NT with singleton heart).
2. The 1NT rebid allows responder to sign off in the other minor with five-card length there (less of an advantage if responder would bid 1♦ over 1♣ holding 4♥+5♦ and a weak hand).
3. The 1NT rebid allows for some shorter/less informative game auctions (where responder might need to explore opposite a possibly-distributional hand).
4. Concealing the four-card spade suit can make the defense harder for opponents in the frequent case that you end in 1NT or 3NT.
5. When you rebid 1♠, partner knows you have 5+m which can help to reach a better partial when responder is weak or sometimes even invitational (less of an advantage if you play XYZ, where you cannot play in 2♣).

Things people claim as an advantage, but aren't really:
1. Right-siding 1NT/3NT. Either method could be better here, depending on holdings in the unbid minor and this is more randomizing than an advantage for either approach.
2. Better slam bidding. Either way you have such a cheap game force (2♦ here) that you won't have trouble finding out opener's entire shape if you have some methods.

Advantages to agreeing not to bypass spades:
1. The 1♠ rebid allows you to reach partials in 1♠ or 2♠ when responder is weak, which are basically impossible after 1NT rebid.
2. The 1♠ rebid occasionally allows you to find a light game when responder has a shapely hand with 4♠ that wouldn't invite after a 1NT rebid.
3. The 1♠ rebid allows you to play in 2♣ when opener has a balanced hand and responder is weak (which you can't do when playing 2-way after a 1NT rebid).
4. The 1NT rebid denying four spades allows responder to conceal his own four-card spade holding, which might make things harder for opponents on lead.
5. The 1NT rebid denying four spades also guarantees four clubs, which might help reach a better partial on some hands.

Looking at all of this together, it depends on some of your other agreements in somewhat complex ways. There's also an IMPs vs. MP difference ("losing" the spade fit on weak hands at MP is a big disaster and suggests bidding the spade suit, whereas the occasional bad lead by opponents against 3NT makes more difference at IMPs and suggests bypassing may work better there).

[FelicityR]

As I was primarily an Acol bidder before reverting to SAYC and 2/1 my view, for what its worth, is that I would never bid 1♠ after a 1♣ - 1♥ auction with 4♠333♣ shape but I am happy to do so with 4♠(32/23)4♣ shape. (Incidentially, if you have 4144 shape with a singleton ♥, the opening technically should be 1♦, although I am sure a few partnerships (through agreement) may agree on a 1♣ opening here.)

As awm has summarised, there are advantages and disadvantages either way rebidding 1♠ or 1NT. And as helene_t has also pointed out, many experienced partnerships play Transfer Walsh here.

I like the idea of immediately limiting your hand and putting the brakes on by rebidding 1NT, and also concealing the four card ♠ suit, as responder could take you for more shape after a 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ auction. However, if you have a two way checkback after a 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT auction, plus the option of fourth suit forcing in the 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ auction, things should not get out of hand if responder has one of those giant hands where he cannot use a Soloway shift (if the partnership uses such methods) but has to resort to a one level suit response and then wait to see what opener rebids next.

[AL78]

With one partner in my student days, playing weak NT, 1♣ - 1♦/♥ - 1♠ could be a intermediate/strong balanced hand up to 19 HCP, and responder should now bid as if opener had opened 1♠.

[pescetom]

FelicityR, on 2019-December-27, 05:48, said:

I like the idea of immediately limiting your hand and putting the brakes on by rebidding 1NT, and also concealing the four card ♠ suit, as responder could take you for more shape after a 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ auction. However, if you have a two way checkback after a 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT auction, plus the option of fourth suit forcing in the 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ auction, things should not get out of hand if responder has one of those giant hands where he cannot use a Soloway shift (if the partnership uses such methods) but has to resort to a one level suit response and then wait to see what opener rebids next.

Playing XYZ makes the natural spades rebid less stressful for both players as they now have robust tools to further investigate shape and combined strength.
It rules out the advantage below however:

awm, on 2019-December-27, 03:30, said:

Advantages to agreeing not to bypass spades:
....
3. The 1♠ rebid allows you to play in 2♣ when opener has a balanced hand and responder is weak (which you can't do when playing 2-way after a 1NT rebid).

[fromageGB]

No doubt all very confusing. My suggestion in a nutshell is :
If your partnership is prepared at this stage to learn a variety of transfer walsh (probably not, and that can get complex with conflicting treatments) then go for it and this question disappears.
If you partnership says "not yet" then if you play pairs (with matchpoint scoring) always bid 1♠, and if you usually play in teams (with International Match Points or IMPs [even though normal matchpoints are themselves international!]) then always bid 1NT.

OK, that's big enough to need a coconut shell.

Partner being not strong enough to use an artificial 2♣ or 2♦ for checkback or xyz over a 1NT rebid is much more common than the other way round.

[miamijd]

It's entirely a matter of partnership agreement, and Adam presented some good pros and cons for both choices. I will provide another one.

1NT slows down the bidding. Partner is going to pass with a balanced 10-count. 1S does not; partner will bid 2NT with most balanced 10-counts (unless you play XYZ, which has its own pluses and minuses, but then you still get to 2NT eventually).

Cheers,
Mike

[oratnihs]

it seems to me the problem is whether you would like your partner to know you hold 4 ♠ as they have not denied holding 4♠. it is about talking to partner (legally)

[wraysford]

Thank you to all respondents for the views expressed. Plenty of food for thought there.
Wraysford

[aawk]

Playing 2 way check back it is ok to bypass a 4 card major if your hand is better suited to play nt. But agree on how to show or find the 4-4 fit if check back is used. By the way you must alert 1nt imo because a 4 card major is still possible.

[pescetom]

Whether one should alert 1NT not denying a major is an interesting RA-dependent question. One certainly should in Italy where it would be considered unnatural.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2019-December-29, 03:14, said:

Whether one should alert 1NT not denying a major is an interesting RA-dependent question. One certainly should in Italy where it would be considered unnatural.

Indeed. In Australia one should certainly not alert because 1NT is considered natural and the information about the possibility of a 4-card spade suit is of minor importance. Nor should 1S be alerted as showing an unbalanced hand.

I'd guess about 2/3 of most fields here would bid 1NT on a balanced hand with 4 spades, for what it's worth.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2019-December-29, 03:54, said:

Indeed. In Australia one should certainly not alert because 1NT is considered natural and the information about the possibility of a 4-card spade suit is of minor importance. Nor should 1S be alerted as showing an unbalanced hand.

I'd guess about 2/3 of most fields here would bid 1NT on a balanced hand with 4 spades, for what it's worth.

Here also. These bids would not be alerted, and 1♠ would show an unbalanced hand.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2019-December-29, 03:54, said:

Indeed. In Australia one should certainly not alert because 1NT is considered natural and the information about the possibility of a 4-card spade suit is of minor importance. Nor should 1S be alerted as showing an unbalanced hand.

I'd guess about 2/3 of most fields here would bid 1NT on a balanced hand with 4 spades, for what it's worth.

Vampyr, on 2019-December-29, 18:20, said:

Here also. These bids would not be alerted, and 1♠ would show an unbalanced hand.

Interesting. In Italy I'd guess less than 1/4 of most fields would bid 1NT on a balanced hand with 4 spades, so it's no surprise that an alert is expected, particularly for 1S showing an unbalanced hand.

[pilun]

1 ♠ or 1NT?

The option of raising hearts was not given.
Not on this hand maybe with ♦Q-x but change it to

♠A865 ♥ Q43 ♦65 ♣AK76

and I would raise hearts. Might be the way to reach 4♥ opposite this carefully chosen 10-count

♠ K7 ♥ AJ762 ♦ T3 ♣ Q843

Easy to reach game after a direct raise, not so clear after a 1♠ or 1NT rebid.

[AL78]

pilun, on 2019-December-31, 02:08, said:

1 ♠ or 1NT?

The option of raising hearts was not given.
Not on this hand maybe with ♦Q-x but change it to

♠A865 ♥ Q43 ♦65 ♣AK76

and I would raise hearts. Might be the way to reach 4♥ opposite this carefully chosen 10-count

♠ K7 ♥ AJ762 ♦ T3 ♣ Q843

Easy to reach game after a direct raise, not so clear after a 1♠ or 1NT rebid.

Carefully chosen, I see what you mean, about the most perfectly matching sub-opening hand possible. I would expect a diamond overcall somewhere if the opponents are holding nine of them including AKQJ.

[pilun]

AL78, on 2019-December-31, 05:09, said:

Carefully chosen, I see what you mean, about the most perfectly matching sub-opening hand possible. I would expect a diamond overcall somewhere if the opponents are holding nine of them including AKQJ.

Okay, give responder

♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦xxx ♣Qxx

4♥ is still pretty good.