[matmat]

LHO       CHO      RHO     YOU
 P          1C       P       P
2C*        P       2NT      P
3NT        X       all    pass 

* michaels.
does the X ask for any lead in particular?

[nickf]

One thing for sure, it says dont lead a club even if you werent watching the auction.

nickf
sydney

[skjaeran]

I doubt very many have any agreement in this particular position. Some would have meta agreements which will apply.

I agree with Nick that clubs is out. You could have an agreement that is asks for the shortest major, but that's not clear enough since opener will normally not have more than a 4-card suit. If I should have an agreement here it would ask for a specific major.

[lilboyman]

nickf, on Dec 2 2007, 12:23 AM, said:

One thing for sure, it says dont lead a club even if you werent watching the auction.

nickf
sydney

I am curious about the thinking behind this.

David

[gwnn]

I'm not quite sure I get this.

Partner did not double 2♣, thus he probably does not have a big stack in a major. Maybe he has one, but then how is our lead going to make any difference? LHO has maybe Qxxxx, so then we get our 3 tricks instead of 2? Doubling should not really ask for any specific lead... Partner just thinks opps made a mistake, he has hcp and majors stopped probably (he is ready to pull the red card over any 4M). But maybe I'm totally on the wrong track here.

[bid_em_up]

Just because somebody doubles, doesn't mean they are demanding any particular lead. I would treat this as "you're not making 3N". So no, I do not think this double asks for any lead in particular.

A club lead is out, not because of the double of 3N, but because partners failure to double 2C has already given the message that he doesn't really have a club suit and so does not want a club lead.

I would expect partner to have decent major suit holdings given this sequence (4423, 4414 are likely holdings for partner). Depending on my hand, I would be inclined to lead my weaker major in most cases, but am willing to lead a diamond as well if I were to have a diamond sequence. If both majors are equally weak, I lead a spade.

jmoo.

[FrancesHinden]

I have meta-agreements, but I don't think they apply here!
One meta-agreement is that if our partnership has only bid one suit, double asks for a lead of that suit.

However, partner failed to double 2C so he can't have much in the way of clubs.

I agree with bid_em_up, partner just thinks he has 5 (or more) tricks and it isn't making. I would expect him to have 18-19 balanced and lots of defence.

My biggest worry is that partner is going to be triple-squeezed on the run of the clubs, but I doubt there's much I can do about that.

[ASkolnick]

Our agreement is a little different. Double of clubs in that position suggests a non-club lead, but a pass suggests that clubs are OK to lead, but not required. So if it goes 1C-P-P-2C-P-2N-P-3N-x, at least the way we play it,a club lead is definitely called for.

[ArtK78]

ASkolnick, on Dec 11 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

Our agreement is a little different. Double of clubs in that position suggests a non-club lead, but a pass suggests that clubs are OK to lead, but not required. So if it goes 1C-P-P-2C-P-2N-P-3N-x, at least the way we play it,a club lead is definitely called for.

So you open the bidding on a 4423 13 count with Qxx of clubs. It goes pass - pass - 2C (alerted). You double because you don't want a club lead and it goes redouble.

What now?

My point is that your agreement makes no sense to me.

[jdonn]

It doesn't ask for a particular lead but he should have the majors locked up (and by inference be short in diamonds.) I would lead my longer major most of the time.