The Preference Bid

You'd think the preference bid would be about the easiest bid to get right. Your partner is just asking you to tell him which suit you like best, which would serve best for trump. That's all. He's not asking you to think, for heaven's sake. Oh, there are occasions where you might pause for a moment, yes, even to think, and I'll get to them shortly. But for the most part, I would say a show of preference should be about your easist task in bidding.
For this discussion, I'm going to divide preference bids into two categories: (1) where the two suits are both majors or both minors and (2) when one is a minor, the other a major.

In the category (1), I would recommend playing 'em right down the straight and narrow: my partner gets the longer suit, regardless of strength and if of equal length, then he gets taken to his first bid suit. There's nothing to think about here. This isn't guaranteed to work best 100% of the time, but it'll do you well almost all the time, not to mention helping to solidify a partner's confidence in you. Nor can you expect to second guess those infrequent times when that policy wouldn't work best. Yet the horror stories abound.
On the first round of an Individual in Boston, I bid a no trump, my partner bid two clubs, I bid 2 spades with both majors, my partner bid 3 no, I bid four hearts -- and as soon as he paused and his brow crinkled, I knew I was in trouble. How could this not be an automatic pass? There are understandings where a 2 club bid does not guarantee a four-card major, but not here where we'd hardly spoken to each other. Then, sure 'nuff, out it came: 4 spades, and down came dummy with 3 spades and four hearts! I have no idea why anyone looking at 4 hearts and 3 spades would say, well, partner, I like spades better.
On another occasion with a pick-up partner in New York, I bid diamonds with 5-5 in the minors, the opponents bid spades, I now bid clubs, the opponents bid spades again, and I bid clubs again. Whether I bid clubs 2 or three times, I'm not sure now. I only know I bid them at least twice, and got the bid for four clubs, and down came dummy with 4 diamonds and 2 clubs! "I thought you wanted clubs," my partner later explained, "because you kept bidding them," making his choice at least a little more understandable than that earlier partner. (Actually, I got a break of my own: the 10 of clubs in dummy wasn't covered, evidently because East didn't think it important enough to spend a king on. But she held a king doubleton and her partner held a thrice-guarded nine, which would have been a winner on a cover. So the club suit that I could have made without losers on a ruff in 4 diamonds was granted to me anyway and I made as many tricks as I could have in four diamonds!)
Then there was the time an frequent partner called me at work on Monday morning to say her team had just missed first place in a Swiss event because her partner made a false preference of 5 diamonds over 5 clubs, holding 2 diamonds and 3 clubs, because, well, clubs was her second suit.
I would say, don't second guess your partner. It's your partner's decision to offer you two suits and up to you to offer the simple courtesy of naming the longer, if of disparate length. So with 4 3 2 in spades and A K in hearts, if my partner bids spades first and then hearts, yes, of course, I would take him back to spades. But let's reverse that holding on the same bidding. Would I then prefer hearts? Yes, of course. Will we sometimes wind up in a 4-3 trump suit, and a rather weak one at that when the 5-2 spade suit would have worked better? Oh, no doubt. Then why . . . ?
First of all, there's no system of bidding that will always infallibly lead you to the best spot. For every position you predicate where the false choice of 2 spades would work better, and you just had a gut feeling it would, I can offer a couple where it wouldn't. Consider the following on that bidding (one spade, one no by you, two hearts). One, your partner may very well have 5 hearts along with 5 spades. It could very well be as strong as the spade suit or even stronger. Even if only 4-times long, that doesn't necessarily mean your goose is cooked. (I knew a woman once who stoutly maintained that 4-3 is always better than 5-2, a position I certainly don't endorse, but in any event, this Moysian fit is commonly playable.)
And not least, I would choose the longer hearts for partnership relations. If my partner protests that I should have preferred the shorter spades, we can talk over under what conditions he'd like that false preference -- including, I would ask him, when you have 5-5 in the majors. But if my partner gets the impression that I'll arbitrarily choose the shorter suit on a "gut feeling", he might become more tentative in offering two suits -- can he trust me this time to choose the best? -- and I feel the violation of a simple principle would in the long run do us more harm than an occasional misfire following the principle. You don't know how the suits are going to split in the opponents' hands, where your partner's strength lies or just how long each suit is. And so, I'd play it right down the middle and hope that my partner will do the same for me.
Here's another case where following that principle might lead to the less than optimum contract. My partner opens a spade with this holding:

K Q 10 9 8
A J 9 8 6 4
7
5

He does so because he knows the bidding could so easily go 3 diamonds on his left, pass, 4 diamonds on his right by the next time he has a bid! He wants to allow me a preference at the 4 level, rather than starting hearts to show the greater length, then showing spades at the four level, possibly throwing us to an unmakable 5 hearts. With, call it, a ten doubleton in each suit, I would much rather be in the 8-card heart fit, but I would show preference for his first suit.
What's the solution? Well, I don't think there is a solution, if by that one means, How do we always, posolutely get in the best contract? In opposition to the sophisticates who would say they go on their gut feelings and would leave it in hearts, I would say several things: First, you don't know your partner has more hearts than spades during the bidding and will incur more than your partner's displeasure when it turns out that he actually had 6 spades and 5 hearts. Nor do you know that the 5-2 fit will be untenable or even make fewer tricks than the 6-2. And lastly, I think the undermining of partnership trust and rapport is going to cost you more in the long run than the contracts you save. Your partner will almost surely remember the violation of trust and poor results a lot longer than he remembers the occasions where you pull one out of the fire.
Here's another misapplication of a preference bid that I recently was a party to on OKbridge. I was facing a disaster when my opponents kindly took the burden of a disaster on their own shoulders. My partner opened a diamond and I was looking at this hand:

J 9 7 6 2
K 9 8 5 3
------
J 9 5

Though I have only 5 hcp's, I dare say almost anyone would consider the hand worth a bid. We could have a nifty 5-4 major suit fit, and even if my partner has only 3 cards in a major, that'd probably be our best spot. But what suit to bid? A heart has the advantage that this will locate any 5-4 fit, and the disadvantage that it could easily miss a 5-3 fit as my partner, with three hearts, proceeds to a no trump rebid. So I chose to bid a spade with the expectation of bidding a non-forcing 2 hearts on a no trump rebid by my partner.
However, my partner didn't rebid one no. His next bid was two clubs, doubled (a delayed takeout) on my right. Though my hand now looks considerably better, I passed, partly because we just might get the contract at 2 clubs doubled, and partly because I really don't want to give my partner too much encouragement. Two hearts were bid on my left, and I was pondering whether I'd double that or compete with three clubs when my partner bid three diamonds! I had half a mind to leave him there with that godawful bid, though I know I would have had little choice other than to take him to four clubs, when my RHO bid three hearts! My double was loud and clear. (Actually, it amounted to typing X and entering.)
Now I had shown preference when I passed 2 clubs doubled. Had I preferred diamonds, I would of course have bid 2 diamonds. The two calls are exactly equal, pass or two diamonds, even though one might sound more "positive" than the other to a neophyte. Similarly, had I liked my hand enough to raise 2 clubs to three, that bid is the exact equivalent of a jump to 3 diamonds had that been the suit I preferred, even though one bid is a jump and the other not. A pass or two diamonds says, "Partner this is the suit I prefer, but I don't have the stuff to push on," while 3 clubs or 3 diamonds would have said, "I like this suit and further have enough values to think the 3 level should be safe."
Please note the difference between a rebid of 2 clubs, double, pass, and a rebid of 2 clubs, 2 hearts, pass. In the latter case, I have not shown preference. I could like diamonds better or I could like clubs. Even there, even with 6-5 distribution, my partner should have rebid 3 clubs (if he had to bid at all) to allow me to choose at the 3 level. But we weren't "even there". I had expressed my preference, my partner should have heard it and respected it and bid clubs if he had to bid anything.
There are a few more things to say about preference bids before moving on to Category 2. Two biddable suits in a hand are not always shown in sequence. Brozel, Michaels and a number of other conventions allow one to bid both majors with one bid. When this happens, naturally you want the longer suit if there is a disparity in length. What do you do if they are of the same length? I don't believe I've ever seen anyone advise on this matter, so for myself, I take the lower ranking for no particularly good reason, except that if my partner must bid the other suit, at least it doesn't cost a level, and I may leave him there with modest support.

Both the preference-asker and the giver must bear in mind that a preference bid for the first suit does not show any more points than have already been shown by that bidder! And if the point count thus far shown is zero (the bidding having been kept open by the opponents), then it is zero after the preference bid. It is no stronger than a pass by the preference shower.
This common sense reminder has been known to be disregarded by both sides. The preference-asker occasionally now says, "Oh, we have some stuff here, eh?" and proceed upward when his partner has a lowly doubleton in each suit offered, and not enough hcp's to fill a teacup. But the preference-giver must remember that he is showing no more points than already promised, and when he is strong enough that had he preferred the second suit he would have raised it, then he must jump in the primary suit to show that this is no "mere preference" but positive support with a few more points than already promised. But now the preference-asker must remember that though a jump, which is usually encouraging, is here no stronger and no more distributional than a single raise in the secondary suit would have been.
Clear to all? If anyone is confused by the obligations of each partner, I think if you go back over it, you'll find nothing tricky here. It's really all a matter of letting your partner know what strength you have and of trusting that your partner is doing the same for you. That's all it is. There will be pul-lenty of hands where it's very difficult to convey your strength accurately. You really want to bid 2 and a half or 3 and a half. Or, preparing to give your partner's major a single raise, your RHO forces you to the three level. You're not vulnerale and know you'd be safe at the three level; but will your partner find enough encouragement to go on to four?
Such dilemmas have to be worked out as encountered. Here I only want to say don't compound your difficulties by making easy choices a matter of great complexity. There shouldn't be much trouble opposite both majors or both minors. That's not to say you'll never pick what turns out to be the less productive suit. It is to say that if you follow simple principles here, you should have as good a record on this matter as anyone, and better than that of a few.

Now, when it comes to a major vs. a minor, I would shift my focus, and instead of playing it right down the middle, I would ask if I have adequate support for the major. And if I do, I would opt for the major, regardless of how much support I have for the minor. And "adequate" I would define as a reasonable expectation of an 8-card (or better) fit. There are two reasons for this.
One is that, of course the majors bring in more points, and the second is that you can often (not always) choose the major at one level lower than the minor would require. So I would make that qualification, that if we're competing with spade bids -- or club bids -- and I can't save a level with our major suit and it appears more likely that we're bidding to sac than to make, then I would go for the sounder trump suit. But if we're bidding to make, or it's not clear and even if we aren't bidding to make, I can save a level with a major suit, then I'd go with the major on adequate support.
Here's a hand where I think a seasoned player might at least have considered the major suit:
10 8
10 6 5
8 7 5
A J 10 7 6 3
K Q 7 6 5 4
K Q
------
K Q 9 4 2

This was one of the most screwed up bidding sequences I ever observed. East opened the bidding with a heart and South bid 2 hearts. North alerted this bid as showing the two highest unbid suits (he played with a great variety of partners), then before West had a chance to bid, amended this to just what South did mean and then, as he later acknowledged, bid as if his first interpretation had been right, without his partner's being any the wiser. This was followed by a four hearts from West, a five diamond bid by North, a double, and an escape to five spades, also doubled.
Five clubs would have been a laydown, and the suit is so powerful that I wouldn't be inclined to blame a North who showed that suit, though the fact is four spades would work better. Okay, five clubs would have been understandable. But five diamonds? His support is so meager, if that had indeed been his partner's other suit, that if a choice had to be made between diamonds and spades, he might well have chanced a 4 spade bid.
To be sure, they're all a little easier to bid afterwards and I'm not belaboring North here. But all bidding is a bit of a gamble, and I only offer this as an example of where the shorter holding would also save a level in the bidding -- and more points if it makes -- and justify itself thereby if it brings in one less trick. Oh, but on a two-suiter can't losing trump control spell disaster? And we don't know South has 6 spades, do we? To be sure, we don't. But it's all a risk, a gamble as just said, and I would think twice here before preferring diamonds over spades if I thought those were my partners two suits. I would think twice and believe I would lean toward spades. Those diamonds are so yukky. And one level higher?

The very day I typed out the above and said that an adequate minor was preferable to an inadequate major, I came across this hand on the computer:
10 7
Q 9 8 7 3
Q 8 7 5
K 10
A Q 8 7 3
------
A K 9 4 3 2
J 5
Curiously the bidding was identical through 4 spades to a bidding sequence I had with Local Expert some years ago. By bidding diamonds first and then spades twice, I'm showing 5 spades and longer diamonds. Only then, my partner had a singleton spade and simply jumped to an easily makable six diamonds. Perhaps the computer would have done the same with a singleton spade. Who knows? But as it was, I was left in a 7-card spade suit chosen over a 10-card diamond! And the opening lead -- naturally -- was a heart, which I ruffed.
I needed an entry to take the spade hook and guessed wrong in clubs (the computer has been known to duck a lead to the king), and the upshot was disaster. But in going over the hand, it's not all that great even if I guess right. Let me go over the sequence:
At trick two, I finesse the 10 of clubs into the ace and get another heart lead, cutting me down to 3 trump. I go to the king of clubs, finesse the queen of spades, play the ace and . .. well, as the cards lie, three of us all have a single trump left, they hold the high ones and I'm wide open in both clubs and hearts. In other words, I can start leading diamonds until some ruffs in, forces me to ruff a heart or club and then I'm finished.
I make a winner out of every spade in my hand in addition to one club and one diamond. Seven tricks in spades when diamonds offer slam on a right guess in clubs and the placement of the king of spades, or at least game! Wait a miinute, sir! You just suggested that a responding partner with three diamonds and a 10 doubleton in spades should think of choosing spades. Did you get carried away by hindsight or is that one extra diamond what spells the difference?
Well, I don't know. Once you know what a hand makes, it's not always easy to know if we favor a bid from hindsight or insight. But let me give you a few mathematical verities and then let you decide for yourself: If you have three trump to offer your partner, and he has a 5-card suit, there's zero chance that there will be trump in dummy when all trump are out, and only a 40% chance there will be if he has a 6-card suit. But if you hold four trump in support, there's a 90% chance that there'll be a trump in dummy after trump are out with a 5-card holding and a 100% chance if he has a 6-card suit. When you compare zero and 40 with 90 and 100 respectively, I think you'll see the value of 4-card support. In any event I was a little tentative about the preceding case, saying that North might at least have considered supporting spades. Here I won't be tentative. I would say that if your partner asks you to choose between a major and a minor, 4 pieces in the minor will probably, though not certainly, serve you better than 2 pieces in the major. And I would feel little hesitation in supporting the minor.