Which order do you bid your suits

[Cascade]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj3hj32daj9642c54&w=skqt5hat64dkt83ck&e=sa972hq975dct9863&s=s864hk8dq75caqj72]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

  West  North  East  South

 

    -    Pass  Pass  1♣

   Dbl    1♦    ?

 

 

This hand came up this morning.

 

Assuming you do not play double for takeout and also don't quibble with any other bids.

 

Is it standard here with a hand that is willing to take two bids to bid 1♠ and rebid 2♥. It seems normal to me but someone questioned me on this today. I said I would check and find out if there is a standard.

 

If you think this hand is not good enough for two free bids then add a point or two to the east hand.

 

I use the same principle on many similar auctions. Not just those with two unbid majors. Actually with a major and a minor that I am willing to bid I will bid the four-card major and rebid the five-card minor.

Supplementary question:

 

How normal are takeout doubles in response to partner's takeout double.

 

Thanks

[Fluffy]

1♠ then 2♥, also often, first 2M then 3♦ or alike, this is what my father teaches, won't say that this is standard since I don't expect many people to do it properly, but I suspect most french teachers do it that way.

[han]

Would bid 1S and I think this is normal. I'm hoping to bid 2H next and I can't bid them the other way around.

 

As for your second question, I'd say this is uncommon but not weirdly rare.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1S followed by 2H.

 

And not because this is standard, but because

this is the only chance to show both suits without

commiting us to the three level, i.e. the order

is just common sense, ... of course there is an

old joke, saying sense is never common.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

If intending to bid twice, bid spades then hearts.

 

Consider: if you bid 1♥ and then bid 2♠, and partner is 3=4, as surely he is allowed to be, he must correct to the 3-level. Why make him do that?

 

As for playing double of responder's call as takeout, it ain't standard. I can see, btw, a strong case for it when the suit is diamonds, but never if it is a major.

[TimG]

How normal are takeout doubles in response to partner's takeout double.

I think standard is that double shows four in their suit and bidding their suit shows five (and is non-forcing). If you can't show length in the suit they bid, they would be able to steal with ease.

[helene_t]

1♠ is normal with this hand although I have seen a few experts prefering 1♥, both in BW and in the Dutch BF magazine. Why they would bid 1♥ is beyond me.

 

In one partnership I play dbl as responsive but that is certainly non-standard.

[kenrexford]

1♠ first for me.

 

X "penalty"

[benlessard]

X of 1D is penalty.

 

When both cue available (2C & 2D) i play that the higher clue is 7-10 pts with support for both M (so i would bid 2D on this hand). Otherwise i would bid 1S. The D void is great but we have only 4 trumps so we are missing a little something for 2S.

 

If intending to bid twice, bid spades then hearts.

 

Consider: if you bid 1♥ and then bid 2♠, and partner is 3=4, as surely he is allowed to be, he must correct to the 3-level. Why make him do that?

 

agree 100%

[skjaeran]

I intend to bid twice on this hand if I can rebid at the 2-level. To enable us to find our 4-4 fit I bid 1♠ 1st and follow up with 2♥ (if possible).

 

Standard is that double by 4th hand here is t/o, although I see a lot of inexperienced players play it as "negative". To me a X is penalty with a 4-card suit and values for a natural 1-level bid of the suit. (Like a 1-level response to partners opening.)

[jchiu]

For me, double would be 'psych-exposing'. I would need that if I were playing against garden gnomes and the like. I would bid 2♣ here, asking partner to choose between the majors and promising another call. Overbidding is fun ...

[Fluffy]

Take out double is normally used by beginners who don't even know that they could bid 2♦ to show diamonds (they would just pass)

 

Playing 2♦ to show diamonds and X as take out is very reasonable, I am sure some good pairs play it that way, I just don't know any :).

[Gerben42]

But then 2♣ might be "pick a major", or not... That's what I would bid often with this shape.

 

With weaker hands and 4 - 4 in majors you have to bid ♠ first, follow up with ♥. That's in the textbooks, makes sense and should be standard.

[Cascade]

But then 2♣ might be "pick a major", or not... That's what I would bid often with this shape.

 

With weaker hands and 4 - 4 in majors you have to bid ♠ first, follow up with ♥. That's in the textbooks, makes sense and should be standard.

I would have thought with very weak hands I would bid 1♥ in case partner has a strong (double and bid hand). Then when he bids 1♠ over 1♥ I can pass at the lowest level possible. Maybe with this particular shape I stand 2♥ if I bid 1♠ first even with a yarborough.

[jdonn]

But then 2♣ might be "pick a major", or not... That's what I would bid often with this shape.

 

With weaker hands and 4 - 4 in majors you have to bid ♠ first, follow up with ♥. That's in the textbooks, makes sense and should be standard.

I would have thought with very weak hands I would bid 1♥ in case partner has a strong (double and bid hand). Then when he bids 1♠ over 1♥ I can pass at the lowest level possible. Maybe with this particular shape I stand 2♥ if I bid 1♠ first even with a yarborough.

Come on Wayne, it's obvious when he said 'weaker' he didn't mean total yarbrough or 'very weak'. Just less-strong than a hand that can cuebid, but obviously still strong enough to take another bid.

[Cascade]

But then 2♣ might be "pick a major", or not... That's what I would bid often with this shape.

 

With weaker hands and 4 - 4 in majors you have to bid ♠ first, follow up with ♥. That's in the textbooks, makes sense and should be standard.

I would have thought with very weak hands I would bid 1♥ in case partner has a strong (double and bid hand). Then when he bids 1♠ over 1♥ I can pass at the lowest level possible. Maybe with this particular shape I stand 2♥ if I bid 1♠ first even with a yarborough.

Come on Wayne, it's obvious when he said 'weaker' he didn't mean total yarbrough or 'very weak'. Just less-strong than a hand that can cuebid, but obviously still strong enough to take another bid.

I wasn't sure.

 

Gerben said "often" he would cue and then "with weaker hands". It certainly seemed to me like either he was meaning all weaker hands or at least it could be interpreted that way.

 

Anyway the point is that I think there are at least three strategies with two four-card suits (majors here):

 

1. bid the lower (cheaper) when very weak

 

2. bid the higher (or the one that makes your rebid in the other suit easiest) with moderate hands

 

3. cue-bid with stronger hands

 

 

For now I don't want to quibble about where the demarcation points are between these strategies just acknowledge that they exist and are reasonably standard.

[jdonn]

For now I don't want to quibble about where the demarcation points are between these strategies just acknowledge that they exist and are reasonably standard.

Agreed, they exist and really are standard. I actually don't think the demarcations are difficult.

 

The demarcation between the first two is obviously just to ask yourself whether you intend to take another bid if LHO bids one of their suits at the cheapest level and it goes pass pass back to you. You needn't even define it, merely ask yourself the question at your first turn to bid.

 

Between the second and third strategies, it seems the cutoff is that if you feel you are worth a jump (like 2♥ or 2♠ on the given auction) then you are worth a cuebid when you have both majors. Again, no need to necessarily define it in terms of something like points, just if you intend to jump but you have both suits you cuebid, but if you intend to bid your suit on the lowest level you don't.

[gnasher]

I don't see why being weak should cause you to bid 1H rather than 1S. If partner happens to be strong and forces me to bid again, having bid spades first allows you to keep the bidding lower. For example

 

  1♣  dbl 1♦    1♠

  2♣  3♣  pass 3♥

 

gives us more room than

 

  1♣  dbl 1♦    1♥

  2♣  3♣  pass 3♠

 

Also, if you vary the order in which you bid your suits according to how strong you are, you can't use this order to show how many cards you have in your suits. If you always bid spades before hearts with 4-4, then bidding hearts followed by spades can promise 4=5.

[Cascade]

I don't see why being weak should cause you to bid 1H rather than 1S. If partner happens to be strong and forces me to bid again, having bid spades first allows you to keep the bidding lower.

The extra room is not very useful when we are weak. Say we have this hand but weaker and bid 1♥ and partner forces with a cue-bid. Presumably he doesn't have hearts so bidding 2♠ to show a second suit is ok. I mean after 1♠ then 2♥ on a similar sequence partner is usually not giving a preference to spades anyway.

 

This just occurred to me:

 

Does anyone play

 

(1m) Dbl (Pass) 1♥

(Pass) 1♠

 

could be a four-card suit.

 

It seems playable to me.

[gnasher]

The extra room is not very useful when we are weak. Say we have this hand but weaker and bid 1♥ and partner forces with a cue-bid. Presumably he doesn't have hearts so bidding 2♠ to show a second suit is ok. I mean after 1♠ then 2♥ on a similar sequence partner is usually not giving a preference to spades anyway.

Why not? If we bid spades followed by hearts, he won't know whether we are 4=4 or 5=4, but with three card spade support he will be able to find out by giving preference economically.

 

If we bid hearts followed by spades, he will have the same problem, but the corresponding solution will take up an entire level of bidding.