[billw55]

From a regional this weekend - IMPs, nobody vul, you hold:

♠AQxx
♥x
♦AKQJ
♣AQJx

RHO deals and opens 1♣. Your plan?

[georgeac]

i would x.

[jjbrr]

saw it off

[Phil]

Double then 2N over 1H. Pretty sure some 'theorists' might suggest 2D after 1H but that's not my style.

[mikeh]

double

what happens next depends on what lho/cho/rho do before the auction returns to me.

nobody psyches 1♣ w/w at imps 1st seat, so we have reason to believe that it will probably go (P) minimum bid (P), and the minimum will usually be hearts.

I'm with Phil as to 2N, and with putting quote marks around 'theorists' to describe any idiot who suggests a non-forcing, misdescriptive 2♦.

If LHO bids 1♥, and partner passes, the good news is that rho has to bid (in most methods, 1♥ is forcing). I won't tell you what I'll do over various actions, in order to avoid looking sillier than usual. I will double 1N, that much I will confess...and I will sit for partner then doubling a runout to 2♥.

[gwnn]

double

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Jun 1 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

double

yep the first call is really tough

[whereagles]

dbl + 3NT if pard bids hearts.

[billw55]

whereagles, on Jun 2 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

dbl + 3NT if pard bids hearts.

That's what happened at the table. Down one, partner tabled ♥J9xx and ♠Jxxx. I wonder how I could have reached a spade contract.

[gordontd]

Teach your partner to respond 1♠ with those hands.

And perhaps you should have rebid 2♣ - after all it would have been correct for your partner to respond 1♥ with 4-5 in the majors. In any case, 3NT seems like a mild overbid.

[whereagles]

billw55, on Jun 2 2010, 07:31 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 2 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

dbl + 3NT if pard bids hearts.

That's what happened at the table. Down one, partner tabled ♥J9xx and ♠Jxxx. I wonder how I could have reached a spade contract.

Perhaps one could cuebid over 1♥. Then, if pard bids 2♠, you get there. But that's always much easier afterwards.

As for replying 1♠ from the beginning, it would solve this particular case but generate the mirror problem if opener's majors were swapped.

There are some hands with 44 majors with which it is preferable to bid 1♠, intending to bid hearts later. However, this isn't one of them.

[jjbrr]

billw55, on Jun 2 2010, 01:31 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 2 2010, 03:14 AM, said:

dbl + 3NT if pard bids hearts.

That's what happened at the table. Down one, partner tabled ♥J9xx and ♠Jxxx. I wonder how I could have reached a spade contract.

lol

[655321]

whereagles, on Jun 2 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

billw55, on Jun 2 2010, 07:31 PM, said:

partner tabled ♥J9xx and ♠Jxxx.

There are some hands with 44 majors with which it is preferable to bid 1♠, intending to bid hearts later. However, this isn't one of them.

Sorry, I don't understand, is it the ♥9 that makes this hand an exception?

[kfay]

TWSS!!!

BTW with a really weak hand and 4-4 majors you bid 1♠, that's just.... everyone should know that.

[twcho]

kfay, on Jun 3 2010, 10:47 AM, said:

TWSS!!!

BTW with a really weak hand and 4-4 majors you bid 1♠, that's just.... everyone should know that.

Really? I will bid 1♥ for weak hand with 44M and pass partner's 1♠ rebid.

[kfay]

twcho, on Jun 2 2010, 10:44 PM, said:

kfay, on Jun 3 2010, 10:47 AM, said:

TWSS!!!

BTW with a really weak hand and 4-4 majors you bid 1♠, that's just.... everyone should know that.

Really? I will bid 1♥ for weak hand with 44M and pass partner's 1♠ rebid.

You will be wrong.

No offense, especially in this case. I mean if partner had opened a 12 HCP 1♠ I would find a way to raise usually with 4-card support and a doubleton, but I'm not going to raise when he shows like 18+ HCP?

But the whole point of this is when partner decides to cuebid and now I want to bid 2♠ NF but it's starting to sound like I have values because I am pushing the level. I guess I could live with this also being 4-4 very bad but frankly I'd much rather play it the other way since now I can bid 2♠ forcing and lose nothing.

[whereagles]

655321, on Jun 3 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 2 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

billw55, on Jun 2 2010, 07:31 PM, said:

partner tabled ♥J9xx and ♠Jxxx.

There are some hands with 44 majors with which it is preferable to bid 1♠, intending to bid hearts later. However, this isn't one of them.

Sorry, I don't understand, is it the ♥9 that makes this hand an exception?

No. The type is the one below. Say you hold

Kxxx
KQxx
xxx
xx

and it goes

1♦ dbl 2♣ ??

Suppose you bid 2♥ and it continues

1♦ . dbl . 2♣ . 2♥
3m pass pass ??

Now you're in a bit of a quandry as to whether you should bid 3♥, as pard can have only 3 of those. Had you bid 2♠ before it could now go

1♦ . dbl . 2♣ . 2♠
3m pass pass 3♥

and pard will pass/correct this to assure you land in the 44 fit.

[mikeh]

I doubt that many good players would advocate advancing 1♥ with weak 4-4 majors (or decent 4-4 either).

In the OP, we should always bid 1♠ and it doesn't take much thought to see why.

1. Opener may bid again: say he bids 2♣ (of course that is unlikely on tha actual hand but advancer doesn't know this). Doubler will double again with a good hand and only 3 cards in our major. Do we really want to have to bid 2♠, having started 1♥? Or would we prefer to bid 2♥, having responded 1♠?

In addition, the 'reverse' can usefully be played as suggesting extra values, especially if the double could be on a strong 3=3=5=2

And opener might rebid 1N. This is low frequency but can happen when we hold a horrible hand and responder has zero or near zero. Now partner doubles and we either leave it in or we pull: it would be far more comfortable to pull to our second suit of hearts rather than our second suit of spades.

2. And more important: opener may pass and partner cue-bids. It probably doesn't matter which suit we responded in if partner has 4+ support, but when his cue bid is still trying to find a fit, it will be more efficient to have responded 1♠ on 4-4. We can reserve hearts then spades for 4=5 or wilder

3. A 3rd layout involves our having a stronger hand....on which if opener rebid 2♣ and partner passed, we'd want to compete: now 1♠ is mandatory so as to be able to reopen with 2♥.

Those who argue that 1♥ is best because we can pass 1♠ are aiming at a very, very narrow target. If our hand is so weak that we can't raise a hand that doubled and bid its own major, why do we assume that his major is spades? What if it's hearts? Now when we respond 1♥, he's likely to go crazy, while if we respond 1♠, we get to pass 2♥ if that is our intention. In short, this argument is exactly balanced: we want to bid the suit he doesn't have, and if we are 4=4 very weak, we cannot draw any inference as to which major he is more likely to hold.

[655321]

Um, whereagles, so you understand the concept of bidding the higher suit first when you may want to (voluntarily) bid both suits, that is good. It is only a small step now to understanding that the same concept applies when you may have to (involuntarily) bid both suits, as explained by kfay and mikeh in this very thread, and thus your claim:

whereagles, on Jun 2 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

There are some hands with 44 majors with which it is preferable to bid 1♠, intending to bid hearts later. However, this isn't one of them.

is incorrect.

[Phil]

655321, on Jun 3 2010, 10:55 AM, said:

Um, whereagles, so you understand the concept of bidding the higher suit first when you may want to (voluntarily) bid both suits, that is good. It is only a small step now to understanding that the same concept applies when you may have to (involuntarily) bid both suits, as explained by kfay and mikeh in this very thread, and thus your claim:

whereagles, on Jun 2 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

There are some hands with 44 majors with which it is preferable to bid 1♠, intending to bid hearts later. However, this isn't one of them.

is incorrect.

Now be nice, Whereagles is closing in on 10K, and we wouldn't want to spoil the party

Agree with bidding spades with 4-4.

I don't know where a lot of the "bid the lower ranking suit holding 4-4" came from, but it has permeated a lot of (incorrect) bidding theory. I'm pretty sure Gwnn or his challenger Mohitz could find some old threads - hey maybe even pclayton suggested it