[Dinarius]

---

The hand is purely for illustrative purposes only.

Playing 15-17 NT, with any balanced 12-14 (or 11-14, if that's what your rebid shows), after 1m,p,1H,p,, do you now show the spade suit, or do you rebid 1NT?

D.

[Cyberyeti]

I open 1N, this is much closer to 15 than 14 (when I checked this with K&R it gave 14.75).

I habitually play a weak NT but if I chose to upgrade, would rebid 1N.

[mw64ahw]

I'd upgrade too; If playing acol then its a 1NT bid for me, but 1♠ otherwise

[mycroft]

I do what my partner expects me to do.

We have an agreement on this - at least we do if it's more than a pickup/spare game. It's very important to know your style here.

In my regular partnership, we rebid 1NT always; but that's because we open a different NT range from the rest of the room and the requirement to "get back to field" overtrumps any concern about the spade suit. But as a result of that, we engineer our system and our thinking after 1NT rebid strongly in favour of "find a missed 4-4 major fit".

I've been moving to 'always bypass' with other partners as well (where we play the "normal" NT range), because I find the system works well.

If I'm playing with someone not regular, in the two fields I usually play in, partner expects me to bid spades with this hand (to the point where 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♦ will be explained as "he has 5 hearts", which confuses me no end). So I do it.

The theoretical best answer, to me, is irrelevant - the difference between "best answer" and "inferior agreement" is much less than "agreement partner understands/expects".

[P_Marlowe]

I prefer showing the shape, but in the end this is something I will follow p,
if he has a preference.

[mikeh]

I am a firm believer in showing hand types here. I have a balanced hand, below our systemic notrump range. It behooves me to show that balanced nature, by rebidding 1N

I play different notrump ranges with different partners. In one partnership, we play 10-13 nv and 14-16 vul. We would bypass spades no matter what range we are using on the hand (but only after 1D 1H because we play transfers to 1C and systemically we always accept the transfer with a balanced hand and if we bypass to bid 1N it shows 17-19). In my other regular partnership, it’s always 14-16. With non-regular partners, most prefer 15-17. To Cyber’s point…the OP wasn’t looking for whether we’d open 1N….the question was whether, given that your hand doesn’t fit your requirements for opening 1N, you bid 1S or 1N

Here, imo, are the arguments:

Bypass:

We conceal the spade suit from the opps, unless partner is strong enough to make at least an invitational call allowing us to own up to spades if appropriate. Thus often gets a spade lead against 1N or even higher notrump contracts. Imagine being on lead with AJ9x xx Kxxx xxx after 1C 1H 1N 3N.

It also sometimes gets a spade balance…whether partner passes 1N or bids, say, 2H.

Perhaps more valuable than either of these factors is the integrity it bestows on 1C 1H 1S….opener is showing at least 4=5 blacks.

You are responder with Jxx KJxx xxx Qxx. After 1C 1H 1S…if 1S could be 4=3=3=3 or 4=2=3=4, then you almost certainly belong in 1N but if he is 4=5 blacks, you almost always want to be in 2C. Your guess

More constructively, when 1S shows an unbalanced hand (no flatter than 4=2=2=5), responder can sometimes look for high level club contracts which would otherwise be somewhere from unattainable to difficult to reach when opener could, for 1S, be balanced.

Up the line: we find our 4=4 spade fit cheaply.

As best as I can tell, and I’ve discussed this with a number of good players, that’s it, in terms of advantages. However, this advantage applies only to hands where responder has 4 spades and less than invitational values. A proper treatment over the 1N rebid will always find the 4=4 fit (edit: if we have invitational or better values) so this advantage is a very minor issue that has virtually no benefit at imps but some benefit at mps.

Btw, several years ago I persuaded a friend, occasional partner, and sceptical expert to try the bypass in a club game. Very early on I held 4=4 majors…he bid 1m, I bid 1H and he bid 1N….missing our 4=4 spade fit. Opening leader held Q108x and innocently led the x….result? A cold top for us��. Of course, no one hand proves anything, but it did help convert that partner to the bypass approach

[bluenikki]

Dinarius, on 2023-September-23, 07:07, said:

---

The hand is purely for illustrative purposes only.

Playing 15-17 NT, with any balanced 12-14 (or 11-14, if that's what your rebid shows), after 1m,p,1H,p,, do you now show the spade suit, or do you rebid 1NT?

D.

Years ago, I did a calculation concluding that responder would have four spades less than 50% of the time. I've lost the spreadsheet, so I don't know my assumptions. Certainly I excluded extreme shapes.

So if responder lacks invitational values, the most likely result of bidding 1♠ is that responder will declare 1NT. If that's OK, bid spades. Here, the tenaces might argue for 1NT.

[Dinarius]

I knew I should have made it a 12 count hand. 😎 By making it a 14 point hand, some just ignored the point of the question and opened 1NT.

For me, a 1♠️ rebid is always 4/5 or longer. It’s unbalanced. 1NT rebid is the best description of my hand, in my view. I will occasionally miss 4/4 in spades and play in a losing 1NT. Such is bridge. If the question had only one answer, we wouldn’t be playing bridge.

D.

[mycroft]

• Well, if you knew the answer already, why did you ask? Quiz the students time?
  
• The fact that this is borderline (could) actually make a difference to some players in their choice of rebid. It doesn't seem to with this crowd, but it's clearly a different problem from
  

  ---

  or

  ---

  or

  ---

  .
  
• Speaking of, it would be interesting to know (not here, I'm pretty certain I know the answer I'd get here, but in my clubs and maybe in yours) what people would do with

  ---

  .
  
• I think you got a lot of good responses on what people would do, what goes into their systemic decision (if that exists) or judgement (if not). In particular, Mike's discussion (which is absolutely independent of hand, and agrees with you) and, all humility aside, mine (which does talk about "I might upgrade that" - I mean, 5 controls including AK in one suit, and HT9 in the other?, but is mostly concerned with "do what partner expects, they'll judge better" over "convince partner to play the theoretically correct agreement, which will take them months to get right, especially if you're the only partner they play this way with" and "we play a different range, so we've decided it's more important to get back to field knowledge"). P_Marlowe's and the Yeti's responses, while sparse in analysis, are also specific answers to your question.
  
• To add to the whole set of answers, I play with one partner that 1♠ guarantees 4 clubs. Yeah, 4=5 at minimum is probably better, but it's an agreement, it's clear, and it's useful. So with him, it's 1♠.

[awm]

A few more advantages for bidding up the line (my preference) beyond finding 4-4 spade fits on partscore deals:

1. You might find a game when responder is a little lighter than a normal invite but has some shape and a spade fit materializes (for example a 4414 10-count opposite a weak notrump with four spades), or if you invite hyper-aggressively for fear of missing the spade fit, you get to play 1NT when there's no spade fit instead of 2NT.
2. Opponents don't know whether opener has a balanced hand or 4♠ and longer clubs when you end up in notrump after 1♣-1♥-1♠, and they're more likely to lead a club into opener's five card suit.
3. You delay the decision of who declares 3NT, so that you don't automatically wrong-side it if opener has two small in the other minor (for example) just because "he has a balanced hand."
4. Your 1NT rebids after 1♣-1♥ guarantee four-plus in clubs, which can help you get to better partials when responder has four clubs also (since 4333 would rebid 1♠).
5. Responder can pass 1♠ when weak with three spades and some shape, and this might be a better partial than 1NT.

[mikeh]

awm, on 2023-September-24, 16:07, said:

A few more advantages for bidding up the line (my preference) beyond finding 4-4 spade fits on partscore deals:

1. You might find a game when responder is a little lighter than a normal invite but has some shape and a spade fit materializes (for example a 4414 10-count opposite a weak notrump with four spades), or if you invite hyper-aggressively for fear of missing the spade fit, you get to play 1NT when there's no spade fit instead of 2NT.
2. Opponents don't know whether opener has a balanced hand or 4♠ and longer clubs when you end up in notrump after 1♣-1♥-1♠, and they're more likely to lead a club into opener's five card suit.
3. You delay the decision of who declares 3NT, so that you don't automatically wrong-side it if opener has two small in the other minor (for example) just because "he has a balanced hand."
4. Your 1NT rebids after 1♣-1♥ guarantee four-plus in clubs, which can help you get to better partials when responder has four clubs also (since 4333 would rebid 1♠).
5. Responder can pass 1♠ when weak with three spades and some shape, and this might be a better partial than 1NT.

It’s great to see you commenting, even though I disagree with your arguments😀

On the first one: I agree that responder, with say a 4=4=1=4 10 count will pass 1N, assuming that is a standard 12-14 range, and that the 4=4 spade fit, if it exists, almost surely plays a trick or two better than does 1N.

But I think that’s more a partscore issue than a missed game one.

Imo, 10 count 4=4=1=4 opposite a minimum balanced opening bid (4234/4324/4333) will not make game very often. That isn’t to say it never makes but the main problem is that one usually (in mainstream methods) can’t stop below 3S if responder wants to invite…and if opener rejects the invite, 3S is going to fail quite often. One can’t bid 2S to invite because opener’s range for 1S is very wide…anything up to just short of a jumpshift. That forces responder to bid 2S with hands well below your 10 count…with the 10 count, he has to jump to 3S. Most, in my experience, don’t use xyz in this auction since they need to be able to get out in clubs.

The hands opposite which your 10 count is usually safe in 3S or, if opener bids on, have good play for game, will tend to be when opener has shape and, of course, those who bypass KNOW at the 1-level that opener has shape so can be aggressive far more than someone whose partner might hold a 4333 12 count.

The chances of an opp leading opener’s 5 card club suit , after 1C 1H 1S 1N (or 2N/3N) is not zero but it’s unlikely…I’ve not tracked this but I’d expect it to be an extremely low frequency. Note that on these sequences, responder is unlikely to be very short in clubs…he doesn’t have 4 spades nor does he have 6 hearts and, beyond 1N, rates not to hold even 5 hearts very often (with invitational or better values, he’d check back for 3 hearts) so the declaring side usually has 7 or 8 clubs…a club lead seems improbable.

As for right siding notrump, in my experience (and in my main partnership we spend a lot of effort on rightsiding) it’s not very important when both players have balanced opening values and the opps are silent. Indeed, concealment often gains at least as much as does rightsiding. After 1C 2H 1N, responder can often just bid 3N…and when he doesn’t, with game values, he can bid 4H with 6+ or use checkback with 5…usually leaving the opps with little helpful information. Up the line bidders have to go through contortions because opener’s hand is still largely undefined by the 1S bid. The more bidding one does, the greater the information leakage. I think th8nk many experts these days see information leakage as at least as important a topic as rightsiding.

The fact that your 1N rebid shows 4+ clubs doesn’t much help find a club partial, if only because most experts these days use xyz, so they can’t sign off in 2C. And driving to 3C on a 4=4 fit with relatively balanced hands is not my idea of winning bridge, at imps or mps, compared to playing 1N. Meanwhile, I find 2C on hands such as xx AJxxx 10xx Qxx opposite AJxx Kx xx AJxxx while you’re guessing what to do over 1S. If you guess 2C, opener may have AKxx Kxx Kxx Jxx…..

Your last point is valid but rare. Responder needs a weak hand with 3 spades…a very weak hand, since opener might have a 4=2=2=5 17 count! Or a 4=3=3=3 12 count. Bear in mind that I’d reach 2C on a 5=3 or 6=3 if responder’s weak hand included 3 clubs and, while a level higher, I’d expect 2C to often play two tricks better than the 4=3 spade fit whennrespinder is weak. If he is 3=2 or 3=1 blacks, 1N will sometimes be better opposite a balanced minimum opening hand.

Anyway, thanks for posting. I’m not sure how often we change our minds after discussions like this but, hopefully, some readers will come away thinking they’re learned something useful.

[awm]

I think you underrate the 4414 hands; if partner opened 1♠, I would force game with Kxxx AKxx x xxxx for example. If I know that partner has four spades and either four clubs or three good clubs, inviting should be fairly safe even if I must go to the three level. Something like AQxx xx xxx KQJx is a fine game in my opinion at IMPs, and that’s just a good minimum and not a max.

It’s also possible that responder has a 45(13) type hand and while you might stretch a invite in hearts, it’s not clear to me that you’re finding all the good games without finding the spade fits.

What do you lead after 1♣-1♥-1♠-2nt-3nt? Obviously it depends on your hand, but declarer can easily have longer/better diamonds than hearts, and leading through dummy’s suit might be less likely to give a free trick on a close game. If opener’s clubs could be only three, I think a club lead is fairly appealing on this auction; I had this come up and lead a club honor from xx KJx KJxx KQ9x just yesterday. I figured I had most of our side’s values and partner holding club jack was at least as likely as him holding diamond queen. Didn’t help this time, opener had five clubs (but their auction didn’t promise five clubs). Of course, the winning lead was a heart (partner had heart QTxx) and I probably wasn’t finding that anyway.

[pescetom]

Interesting discussion. I can see many merits in bypassing the spades, but as mycroft says it is usually unwise to force a convention on partners that are well tuned to playing without it and would never play it with any other partner. Bidding up the line is heavily ingrained in Italian players and even I would struggle to change, so this will have to wait. Even some clearly win-win conventions like Support Doubles are difficult to adopt here, for the same reason.

[DavidKok]

I personally prefer bypassing spades on this auction, for the reasons mikeh presented. Dutch Doubleton gives me best of both worlds - finding the spade partials, bypassing spades with balanced hands, and 1♥ shows extras so the desire to pass 1♠ is shifted to a different auction (where it remains a live possibility). But even in standard I think bypassing them is a winner on balance.

As for the convention comparison, I'm not sure Support doubles are the best example. They might not be as good as people seem to think, at least outside a limited opening context.

[Cyberyeti]

Dinarius, on 2023-September-24, 10:09, said:

I knew I should have made it a 12 count hand. 😎 By making it a 14 point hand, some just ignored the point of the question and opened 1NT.

For me, a 1♠️ rebid is always 4/5 or longer. It’s unbalanced. 1NT rebid is the best description of my hand, in my view. I will occasionally miss 4/4 in spades and play in a losing 1NT. Such is bridge. If the question had only one answer, we wouldn’t be playing bridge.

D.

I didn't ignore it, everybody seems to have failed to notice I answered it on the line below.

Hand type first so skip the major although it is easier for me to say this playing a weak NT as the 1N rebid gets passed less often.

[AL78]

I've thought about this before and can see both sides. On the one hand showing the spades can get you into a making spade partial instead of a failing 1NT when repsonder is minimum. On the other hand, it may cause problems for partner trying to cater for the possibility you could be flat instead of unbalanced, which could affect their judgement of the trick taking potential of the two hands.

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - 2♦ (FSF)
?

♠AQ87
♥K53
♦T75
♣KJT

If you are playing 5CM, strong NT, prepared club, what do you do now? If you give partner delayed heart support (showing three cards), will he suspect you have three losing diamonds? Bridge is difficult enough without throwing curveballs like this. Better to bid 1NT on the second turn.

[Gerardo]

AL78, on 2023-September-28, 06:21, said:

I've thought about this before and can see both sides. On the one hand showing the spades can get you into a making spade partial instead of a failing 1NT when repsonder is minimum. On the other hand, it may cause problems for partner trying to cater for the possibility you could be flat instead of unbalanced, which could affect their judgement of the trick taking potential of the two hands.

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - 2♦ (FSF)
?

♠AQ87
♥K53
♦T75
♣KJT

If you are playing 5CM, strong NT, prepared club, what do you do now? If you give partner delayed heart support (showing three cards), will he suspect you have three losing diamonds? Bridge is difficult enough without throwing curveballs like this. Better to bid 1NT on the second turn.

I'm in the "bypass spades to show a balanced hand" camp,
but in your case I'd bid 2♥ showing 3.
Your partner knows 4=3=3=3 is a possible pattern here, and has bidding space to ask.

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2023-September-28, 06:21, said:

I've thought about this before and can see both sides. On the one hand showing the spades can get you into a making spade partial instead of a failing 1NT when repsonder is minimum. On the other hand, it may cause problems for partner trying to cater for the possibility you could be flat instead of unbalanced, which could affect their judgement of the trick taking potential of the two hands.

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - 2♦ (FSF)
?

♠AQ87
♥K53
♦T75
♣KJT

If you are playing 5CM, strong NT, prepared club, what do you do now? If you give partner delayed heart support (showing three cards), will he suspect you have three losing diamonds? Bridge is difficult enough without throwing curveballs like this. Better to bid 1NT on the second turn.

If your agreement was to show spades on the second turn you should do so, now it is automatic to show 3= card heart support, whether or not 2♦ is 4SF or some more refined convention.
The curveball would be to hide this to partner who is certain of strength but looking for direction.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2023-September-28, 14:50, said:

If your agreement was to show spades on the second turn you should do so, now it is automatic to show 3= card heart support, whether or not 2♦ is 4SF or some more refined convention.
The curveball would be to hide this to partner who is certain of strength but looking for direction.

I agree that opener has to show his hearts, but isn’t the method wonderful? Responder has no idea whether opener is 4=3=3=3, 4=3=2=4, 4=3=1=5 or 4=3=0=6!

He has no idea whether opener has say AQx in diamonds or x….and I doubt that there’s any realistic way for him to find out…opener is raising 2N to 3N with all but the 4=3=0=6 hand, and should responder name the non-notrump strain in which he wants to play, opener’s non-raise bids, other than notrump, are cues, not shape.

Compare this to 1S then 2H showing 4=3=1=5 or 4=3=0=6 and 1C 1H 1N 2D 2H showing a balanced hand with 3 hearts…responder can bid a natural 2S and get raised if he’s interested in opener being precisely 4=3=2=4 or 4=3=3=3.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-September-30, 15:10, said:

I agree that opener has to show his hearts, but isn’t the method wonderful? Responder has no idea whether opener is 4=3=3=3, 4=3=2=4, 4=3=1=5 or 4=3=0=6!

He has no idea whether opener has say AQx in diamonds or x….and I doubt that there’s any realistic way for him to find out…opener is raising 2N to 3N with all but the 4=3=0=6 hand, and should responder name the non-notrump strain in which he wants to play, opener’s non-raise bids, other than notrump, are cues, not shape.

Compare this to 1S then 2H showing 4=3=1=5 or 4=3=0=6 and 1C 1H 1N 2D 2H showing a balanced hand with 3 hearts…responder can bid a natural 2S and get raised if he’s interested in opener being precisely 4=3=2=4 or 4=3=3=3.

The method is certainly less descriptive of shape, although whether that is a defect or a virtue may be in the eye of the beholder: plenty of posts here have extolled the virtues of nebulous bidding and concealment up to game level. It would have found a fit in either major and if Responder is worried about a diamonds stop he can still involve Opener in the decision. I have an open mind (grass looks slightly greener) about bidding NT rather than showing 4CM but I'm not sure this hand is evidence.