Another BWS problem

[frank0]

First I put the rule here

Bypass rule: If a player bypasses a natural notrump bid to make a nonforcing bid, then later bids notrump uninvited over an opposing bid, that notrump bid is unusual (showing additional distribution, not offering to play in notrump).

 

Yesterday I was playing on BBO and my partner bid 2♣ then later compete with 3NT, so I follow the rule and conclude that because he bypassed 1NT so 3NT must be unusual showing a distribution hand with ♣ and ♥. But actually my partner had ♠A54 ♥2 ♦A65 ♣AKQ873, he just wanted to make 3NT with a little help with my hand.

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1d2c2sp3d3n]133|100[/hv]

So

1.How do you generally treat this 3NT as?

2.Can anyone explain a little bit more(maybe with example) about bypass rule? I don't quite understand.

3. How would you bid my partner's hand?

[manudude03]

1. I would take 3NT as sort of what your partner had.

2. A NT bid is unusual if you have both bypassed the opportunity to bid it naturally, AND you are unable to show your hand naturally:

eg: 1D-(1S)-P-(2S)

P -(P) -2NT would be both minors (typically 5-3 or something since partner opened a minor)

 

In your auction, overcaller could have just bid 3H to show a lot of round-suit cards, so no need for an unusual NT.

 

3. I think the hand posted is worth a double+club bid, but don't think his actual bidding was bad.

[Lurpoa]

For one or other reason, I cannot read your diagram, it is too small in my browser. Why could that be ? Apparentlly, others were able to read it... Can anybody help me ?

 

 

But to answer your question: what does it mean "bypassing NT" ?

The BWS Bypass rule is a generalisation of the 1NT bypass rule.

The following was written by Mr John Montgomery, in his 4th Edition of RCS.

 

QUOTE

ONE NOTRUMP BYPASS RULE This rule, invented by Jeff Rubens, holds that anytime you bid 2NT in a defensive auction where you could have bid 1NT earlier and chose not to do so, you are showing some kind of two-suited hand, not a natural 2NT bid. An example is (1H)-X, (P)-2C, (2H)-P, (P)-2NT. You could have bid 1NT (or 2NT) the first time, but chose to bid 2C instead. Do you really want to play 2NT now? No, says Jeff, you are showing a desire to get to three of a suit, and a second suit to go with the one you have bid, which can only be diamonds here. He says he has never seen a hand where this rule didn't apply. I haven't thought of one either, so let's play the rule. But note that it doesn't apply to auctions where the first bid by the eventual 2NT bidder showed a good hand. Here, the 2C bid showed no values and could have been passed.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Jeff Rubens (ACBL Hall of Fame) is a Bridge World Editor: so, no surprise this important principle found it's way into BWS2001. He is also a "promoter" of Hand Evalution by Visualisation.