[asc]

Scoring: MP

---

W____N_____E_____S
1♣___pass___1♥___pass
1♠___pass___3♥___pass
3NT__pass___4♣___pass
6♣___pass___pass___?

individual, not BBO hand,money game, level-unknown(but usualy 60% advanced,30%experts and 10% beginners (or in bad condition).
3♥-usualy force

[Echognome]

Why would I want a heart lead?

Seems a clear pass to me.

[Free]

Depends on what you think of a Double here... If you pass, partner will probably lead his singleton ♥, in which case the contract may make. If you Dbl, partner will know to make an unusual lead, which has to be ♠ or ♦.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass, looking at my hand, it is unclear,
if they know, what they are doing, so
pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[inquiry]

Partner will be broke. The good thing about the double, is partner very well may not have a heart to lead (RHO has at least 6, LHO bid NT, I have five). Dummy will not have enough heart winners to allow WEST to get rid of all his spades, but Dummy may have enough heart AND diamond winners to acccomplish this feat if we don't get spades on track at trick one.

If dummy has a singleton spade (likely, or maybe shorter) can we beat this? No heart trick, no club trick, one spade trick (or less). But will declarer have enough winners? 2H, 2D, 5C, 3S ruffs. It looks like it is possible.

I guess I would still double as it is matchpoints, and if partner leads a diamond, we probably have no shot, and if this makes, we are getting a nothing score anyway. Put me down as a depressed, but hoperful, double. Seems only way to get a spade lead from partner.

[mikeh]

In stark contrast to Free, my thinking is:

1) a double calls for a ♥ lead. I expect partner to have a ♥.... rho has 4♠s, some ♦ cards and long enough ♣s to jump to slam. I also think that either these guys know what they are doing or (more likely) that they are guessing the same way... that 3♥ was intended as forcing and 4♣ as a slam try)

2) a normal lead, on the auction, is a ♦. It is most definitely NOT a stiff ♥, which rates to give away a tempo...and a clue... after all, a reasonably aware declarer knows that opening leader knows that declarer is short in ♥s.

3) There is close to zero likelihood of a ♠ lead, whether I pass or double

4) I suspect that the contract is either cold (usually without a ♠ lead) or that it becomes cold on a ♦ lead: QJxx x AQ AQTxxx opposite xx AKJxxx x KJxx is a layout that would not surprise me in the least (or, if 3♥ was invitational, Qxxx x AQ AKJxxx opp xx AKJxxx x Qxxx). On a ♦ lead, declarer pitches a ♠ and concedes a ♠ and, if careful, takes a couple of ruffs while pulling trump, cashing the top ♥s only at the end. If I get a ♥ lead, declarer will have no chance..

So I make the seemingly (and perhaps truly) futile double, not so much because I expect the ♥ lead to beat it but because I don't expect to have any chance to beat it without a ♥ lead.

[Fluffy]

I suspect there are soem people who play double for penalties on rubber bridge, but normally I think it asks for a heart lead

[whereagles]

Agree with mikeh. I think it is virtually impossible to get a spade lead here, so I'll just ask opps to swap hands with pard prior to the lead

[Apollo81]

I'd pass. BTW it's not clear to me that double should ask for a heart lead in this auction.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Jun 18 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

In stark contrast to Free, my thinking is:

I'm not certain that part of your analysis isn't flawed.

Quote

1) a double calls for a ♥ lead. I expect partner to have a ♥.... rho has 4♠s, some ♦ cards and long enough ♣s to jump to slam. I also think that either these guys know what they are doing or (more likely) that they are guessing the same way... that 3♥ was intended as forcing and 4♣ as a slam try)

Double does not call for a heart lead. It calls for an unusual lead, which is normally dummies first bid suit, usually because we are going to be ruffing it. Yes, I am positive you already know this but, on this auction, partner has to realize it is impossible for us to be ruffing a heart. And we most certainly are not doubling on the AQxxx of hearts (its possible we have that holding, but we would not be doubling on it), since we can expect no more than one trick with this holding anyway. So I'm not sure partner is required to blindly lead a heart now. He is still allowed to consider other "unusual" leads, and the spade lead certainly is one.

Quote

2) a normal lead, on the auction, is a ♦. It is most definitely NOT a stiff ♥, which rates to give away a tempo...and a clue... after all, a reasonably aware declarer knows that opening leader knows that declarer is short in ♥s.

Agreed.

Quote

3) There is close to zero likelihood of a ♠ lead, whether I pass or double.

I think an expert partner should realize that you are aware the "normal" lead is a diamond. He should also realize it is practically impossible that you really want a heart lead (either because you are ruffing it, or because you have a decent heart holding). This, to me, would leave a spade as being the "unusual" lead.

Quote

4) I suspect that the contract is either cold (usually without a ♠ lead) or that it becomes cold on a ♦ lead: QJxx x AQ AQTxxx opposite xx AKJxxx x KJxx is a layout that would not surprise me in the least (or, if 3♥ was invitational, Qxxx x AQ AKJxxx  opp xx AKJxxx x Qxxx). On a ♦ lead, declarer pitches a ♠ and concedes a ♠ and, if careful, takes a couple of ruffs while pulling trump, cashing the top ♥s only at the end. If I get a ♥ lead, declarer will have no chance..

So I make the seemingly (and perhaps truly) futile double, not so much because I expect the ♥ lead to beat it but because I don't expect to have any chance to beat it without a ♥ lead.

I think you are right in the fact that a heart lead might prevent the contract from making in these scenarios, and that the double will probably work.

But I think that with the double, partner is more apt to lead a spade than you appear to be giving him credit for.

And although I voted pass in the poll, the more I consider it, I think double is quite likely to work. Either partner now leads a heart and we still have chances, or he works out that I really cannot want a heart and leads a spade instead. I would expect a top-class defender to find the spade lead after the double, but stranger things have happened.

In either case, its two chances better than leaving partner to making his "normal" lead of diamond.

jmoo.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't buy that the 'normal' lead is a diamond. Partner will lead his better pointy suit. For example, holding Kxxx x xxxxx xxx I would expect him to lead a spade.

Sadly of course he doesn't have the SK and he may have the DK.

[bid_em_up]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 19 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

I don't buy that the 'normal' lead is a diamond. Partner will lead his better pointy suit. For example, holding Kxxx x xxxxx xxx I would expect him to lead a spade.

Sadly of course he doesn't have the SK and he may have the DK.

On the holding you give, is it really partners "normal" lead from the spade king into the spade bidders hand? I dont think so.

[FrancesHinden]

bid_em_up, on Jun 19 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 19 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

I don't buy that the 'normal' lead is a diamond.  Partner will lead his better pointy suit.  For example, holding Kxxx x xxxxx xxx I would expect him to lead a spade.

Sadly of course he doesn't have the SK and he may have the DK.

On the holding you give, is it really partners "normal" lead from the spade king into the spade bidders hand? I dont think so.

That's OK, you can not think so... but I do.

Suppose partner chooses to make an aggressive lead. A diamond, into the hand that bid NT voluntarily, certainly counts as an aggressive lead. Partner selects an attacking lead because he is concerned that declarer's line will be to draw trumps/set up hearts in some order or other. He wants to set up our side suit trick before the hearts are run. Now, looking at short hearts and - possibly - long clubs, partner might elect to make a fairly passive lead, i.e. a trump or a heart. But if he decides to attack, it's pretty random whether to lead a diamond or a spade.

Declarer has more spades than diamonds, but not necessarily more high cards in spades than diamonds. Who wouldn't open 1C and rebid 1S looking at
Axxx
x
AQx
KQJxx
?

without even seeing dummy, I bet a spade is the right lead against 6C (second choice: trump

The thing to remember on this auction is that a diamond is just as much 'into' declarer's hand as a spade is. From xxxx x Kxxxx xxx I equally expect a diamond lead (and that's the problem on the actual hand - partner likely has a diamond honour and not a spade honour. Holding the SA and the DK I'd be hoping much more strongly for a spade lead).

You could come up with some long discussions about dummy's likely suit lengths and possible lines of play that might tilt you towards one suit or the other being better in theory. But the difference will be marginal.

In fact, on this particular auction we are probably more likely to the cashing the SAK than the DAK. But you can get into bluff-and-double-bluff arguments if you aren't careful here.

[mikeh]

I agree with Frances in her analysis re the possibility of a ♠ lead in a vacuum, but we are not considering our double in a vacuum As Frances noted, we are looking at the ♠K, so we know partner isn't. There are many hands on which partner will lead away from any pointed King he holds, because he has to play us for one trick and needs to build another one. I also agree that declarer is more likely to hold topless ♠ than topless ♦s on these auctions.

I have rethought my analysis, however, with respect to the likely impact of my double. I now agree that the double MIGHT generate a ♠ lead. Hence the double becomes even more imperative: there are many holdings on which a ♥ lead works well, and few where it fails (partner will not blindly lead a ♥ if holding the ♦A for example). And now, on reflection, I agree that it is possible that partner will lead a ♠ IFF I double.

Hey, I am never unhappy if I make the right decision for the wrong reason... I don't make enough right decisions to get picky

[jdonn]

There is another good reason to double. At mps I expect many tables will be in 4♥ given the auction by the opponents, and I'm certainly not going to beat them by defending 6♣ undoubled.

[pclayton]

I've been convinced of Bid-Em's arguments for a double.

I think with an intelligent partner who reads the same literature as me, that double makes a lot of sense.

There was a similar hand in the BW a few months ago that featured the double of a slam. A void in partner's hand was impossible, so the next choice was an 'unusual' lead. A spade is, by definition, an unusual lead on this auction and is a standout with a x. You might get a spade lead without it, but you are more likely to get a diamond lead.

[Fluffy]

Leading from a king against a slam when dummy has a good suit is automatic.

[bid_em_up]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 19 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Jun 19 2007, 05:39 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 19 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

I don't buy that the 'normal' lead is a diamond.  Partner will lead his better pointy suit.  For example, holding Kxxx x xxxxx xxx I would expect him to lead a spade.

Sadly of course he doesn't have the SK and he may have the DK.

On the holding you give, is it really partners "normal" lead from the spade king into the spade bidders hand? I dont think so.

That's OK, you can not think so... but I do.

Suppose partner chooses to make an aggressive lead. A diamond, into the hand that bid NT voluntarily, certainly counts as an aggressive lead......

I will rephrase it.

Given our holdings (which already include the AK of spades), we can reasonably expect partners normal lead to be either a diamond or a trump the majority of the time, on this particular hand. (I said, at least 95% earlier, but thats just a number I am guessing at).

We would be attempting to discourage either of these "normal" leads with the double. I think partner should be able to find the spade lead, given that it is not possible for us to demand a heart as the only lead we think may set the contract. We cannot be ruffing the heart, and we cannot know how many (if any) hearts are cashing.

The only factor in favor of pass that I can see is that the problem is given as an individual game. I probably don't know if this particular partner will be capable of working all of this out or if he has ever even heard of a lightner double before.

[skjaeran]

I think it's clear to double this.
I agree with Frances' analysis.
Josh is making a valid point too.

[foo]

I X every day of the week and 2x on Sunday.

Whether it works or not, I'm terrified that if I =don't= X, I'm seeing pd put a ♦ or a trump on the table... ...and I =know= those are Bad For Us.

pd may end up doing the wrong thing anyway. The contract may be cold and my X hands Them a better score.

But IMHO the only chance We have to get a good score is to X and set this.