Differentiating strong one suiters over opp's wk2

[Stephen Tu]

Opponent opens 2♥, and you have some good hand with 6+ spades. Can you provide an example hand that you would consider typical for:

 

-3♠

 

-4♠

 

-dbl, followed by 3♠ over partner's expected leb 2nt

 

-dbl, followed by 4♠

 

-3♥, followed by 4♠ (or what does this sequence mean if not some spade one-suiter, assume that a direct leap to 4m shows ♠ + minor)

[cherdano]

Very good question, let me try:

 

3S: AKJTxx xxx AKx x, AKxxxxx x AJx xx

 

4S: KQJxxxx x KQx AJ

 

X-then-3S: KQJxx x AKx KQJx, AQJxxx x AQx KQx

 

X-then-4S: AKJxxx x KQx AKx

 

3H-then-4S: AKQxxxx x KQx Ax

 

X followed by a spade bid never shows a true one-suiter.

[Guest Jlall]

Opponent opens 2♥, and you have some good hand with 6+ spades. Can you provide an example hand that you would consider typical for:

 

-3♠

 

-4♠

 

-dbl, followed by 3♠ over partner's expected leb 2nt

 

-dbl, followed by 4♠

 

-3♥, followed by 4♠ (or what does this sequence mean if not some spade one-suiter, assume that a direct leap to 4m shows ♠ + minor)

3S- AKJxxx xx KJx Ax

 

4S- AKJxxxx xx AKx x

 

X then 3S- could be a lot of hands but the key is flexibility. KQxxxx x AKx AJx, KQxxx x AKxx AQx, Kxxxxx x AKQx AQ would all apply.

 

X then 4S- AKQxxx x KQx AKx.

 

3H then 4S... no idea tbh.

[jdonn]

Arend and Justin both gave pretty good examples. 3♠ and 4♠ just differ by playing strength, double first in either case is more flexible. I believe the cuebid then 4♠ shows a solid suit in a very good hand.

[han]

I have some minor squibbles, if that's an English word and means what I want it to mean. I would expect slightly better hands than Arend for the jump to 4S and 3H followed by 4S. I think 4S should be a 9-trick hand.

[skjaeran]

I have some minor squibbles, if that's an English word and means what I want it to mean. I would expect slightly better hands than Arend for the jump to 4S and 3H followed by 4S. I think 4S should be a 9-trick hand.

Quibbles is the word. B)

[jdonn]

I have some minor squibbles, if that's an English word and means what I want it to mean. I would expect slightly better hands than Arend for the jump to 4S and 3H followed by 4S. I think 4S should be a 9-trick hand.

Weren't his examples 4 and 3 losers, respectively? looks like 9 tricks!

[han]

To quote a frequent poster: I don't understand loser count. Give partner a useless hand and often I might not take 9 tricks with KQJxxxx x KQx AJ. That's what I mean when I said 9 tricks.

[rbforster]

I believe the cuebid then 4♠ shows a solid suit in a very good hand.

I also play this way, i.e. cuebid is nominally stopper asking for 3NT with a solid minor but could be solid spades or various other very strong single suited hands. I believe this is not expert standard however, so make sure you agree with your partner before trying the cuebid with solid spades.

 

Remember that over 2♥, 3♥ is basically your only forcing bid if you're unwilling to see partner sit for your double. (well, I guess higher NT and heart bids are forcing to, but those are 2-suiters)

[mikeh]

I may be confused (a common situation, my partners say) but I think I saw, in a fairly recent BW, that Nickell-Freeman played that the cue bid followed by pulling 3N shows a true monster (the cue bid ostensibly asks partner to bid 3N with a stopper, and is usually based on the expectation of running 9 tricks).

 

The idea being that some, rare, hands are too good for either 3♠ or 4♠ and too declarer-oriented to risk double... not to mention the 'flexibility' that double then bid usually connotes.

 

I remember thinking 'what a good idea' and then promptly forgot it until reading this thread.

[cherdano]

I may be confused (a common situation, my partners say) but I think I saw, in a fairly recent BW, that Nickell-Freeman played that the cue bid followed by pulling 3N shows a true monster (the cue bid ostensibly asks partner to bid 3N with a stopper, and is usually based on the expectation of running 9 tricks).

 

The idea being that some, rare, hands are too good for either 3♠ or 4♠ and too declarer-oriented to risk double... not to mention the 'flexibility' that double then bid usually connotes.

 

I remember thinking 'what a good idea' and then promptly forgot it until reading this thread.

Your memory is right, they earned a slam swing against the Italians I think. According to a reference elsewhere Nickell's hand was AKQJ9xx A x KTxx (I don't have the BW right here to check).

 

Fred posted some time ago here that 3H shouldn't be thought of as an asking bid (do you have a stopper?) but as a showing-bid (I have a solid suit plus some more). This makes this sequence very natural.