[gnasher]

2♣  pass 2♦  3♥
3NT pass 5♦  pass
6♦  dbl

What does this double ask for? Or, if you favour a "Look at your hand approach and work it out" style, what are the possible meanings?

[OleBerg]

Hearts and thrumphs are forbidden.

Look at your hand and figure it out.

[Codo]

Yes, a black suit.

[mikeh]

While I am open to learning why I am wrong, I am very strongly of the view that this double demands a heart lead.

We would normally not lead hearts on this auction. Doing so, in the face of the 3N call, would usually cost a tempo...and sometimes a trick, depending on the lie of the suit, and when partner can double, we cannot logically have a hand on which we could both establish and expect to get in to cash a heart trick.

This kind of sequence usually calls for an aggressive lead, so we wouldn't be leading trump. Therefore, if we were leading against an undoubled contract, we'd try to guess the most effective black suit.

Partner will be on the same wavelength and would therefore pass if a black suit lead were required (not to mention that on this auction, there is no way that partner can either expect us to guess right or to even have 2 fast winners in a black suit anyway).

But if he has a heart ruff and an Ace...he has to get us to do that which ordinarily we would not do....lead hearts.

BTW, the main argument against this reasoning is a fear that they will run to 6N, but partner can't guard against everything....and, often, on these auctions, they can't successfully run to 6N anyway.

Ok....now I'll sit back and learn why others disagree

[OleBerg]

mikeh, on Nov 27 2009, 11:41 PM, said:

While I am open to learning why I am wrong, I am very strongly of the view that this double demands a heart lead.

We would normally not lead hearts on this auction.

Oh, but often we would.

This is where I disagree. I don't find your subsequent logic to be at fault.

It is quite correct, that often another lead will be indicated, but quite often hearts will be indicated.

This will often rely on inferences (some in the second degree) like:

- Did 3NT show a balanced hand? Did it deny a balanced hand?
- Opponents style, and maybe even the tempo of the 3NT bid.
- How firm are the opponents agreements here (also after 3NT)?
- Was a penalty double available to the strong hand?
- What would pass from the strong hand be (aside from forcing )?
- How solid do the strong hand percive the preemptor to be?
- What is the vulnerabilety?


I'll take the liberty of being a little detourish:

Imagine the overcal had been 2♥, but with the same continuation. Now many/all of these inferences would change in nature.

So we would be in a situation, where a partnership would have to be so much on the same wavelength (when is "our suit" the natural lead?), that misunderstandings are simply waiting to happen.

So without any prior, very specific, discussion, I would go with the classic: "Forbids our suit, forbids thrumphs".

[aguahombre]

"Our suit"? Your suit --partner's void.

[OleBerg]

aguahombre, on Nov 28 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

"Our suit"? Your suit --partner's void.

Feel free to read "our suit" as "opening leaders suit", in my post above.

[paulg]

At my local club they would all lead a club, dummy's first bid suit.

[kfay]

mikeh, on Nov 27 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

While I am open to learning why I am wrong, I am very strongly of the view that this double demands a heart lead.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...hl=lead+problem

I agree with you.

[peachy]

No heart, no diamond. I need to look at my hand, but probably clubs.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Nov 27 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

2♣  pass 2♦  3♥
3NT pass 5♦  pass
6♦  dbl
What does this double ask for?  Or, if you favour a "Look at your hand approach and work it out" style, what are the possible meanings?

IMO ♥ = 10, ♣ = 8, ♠ = 6.
Of course, you may get a clue from your hand. Some players tend to lead their own suits anyway, but otherwise it is possible that partner may be asking for the lead of your pre-empt suit. Partner did not overcall 2♣ so there is a slight inference that he holds a void rather than a promising tenace.

[benlessard]

The holder of a 7 card suit will often lead a singleton instead of leading his own suit. So it surely make sense that the lightner still ask partner to lead his own suit.

By default i play that X ask for unusual lead (so not H here), but X show a void is probably better when partner show 7-8 card lenght.

[mikeh]

ok, gnasher...... what did it in fact mean, and what was your view.....or the consensus of others you have discussed it with? I suppose the actual hand, and intent of the doubler, is technically irrelevant, since I think this is either a matter of specific agreement or an area in which there can be legitimate disagreement, but I'm always interested in reading the outcome of any problem to which I've submitted an answer, as i suspect the other posters are also.

[gnasher]

The hand which occasioned the question was x KJTxxxx xxx xx. I didn't actually hold this hand - someone gave it to me as a problem. I said:

me said:

You might argue that double calls for a heart lead because it's unlikely that you'd have anything else that you'd want to ask for.

However, I like general rules, and in general your own suit is a normal lead, so double discourages that.  Partner might just have two winners, and be trying to discourage a heart lead, which might allow the losers to be thrown away.

With SAKxxx he might have chanced a 2S bid, so I lead a club.

Apparently that would have been right - partner had ♣AQ and slam was makeable on any other lead - but there didn't seem to be any particular consensus about what the double meant.

I asked my two regular partners about this type of double, and got two different answers, neither of which was the same as my answer. I persuaded both of them that I was right, but now I'm wondering if I'm wrong. Your and Ben's arguments are quite persuasive.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-November-29, 16:59

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Nov 29 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

The hand which occasioned the question was x KJTxxxx xxx xx.  I didn't actually hold this hand - someone gave it to me as a problem.  I said:

me said:

You might argue that double calls for a heart lead because it's unlikely that you'd have anything else that you'd want to ask for.

However, I like general rules, and in general your own suit is a normal lead, so double discourages that.  Partner might just have two winners, and be trying to discourage a heart lead, which might allow the losers to be thrown away.

With SAKxxx he might have chanced a 2S bid, so I lead a club.

Apparently that would have been right - partner had ♣AQ and slam was makeable on any other lead - but there didn't seem to be any particular consensus about what the double meant.

I asked my two regular partners about this type of double, and got two different answers, neither of which was the same as my answer. I persuaded both of them that I was right, but now I'm wondering if I'm wrong. Your and Ben's arguments are quite persuasive.

thanks.... I now think that maybe I was wrong I like your argument, altho I still think that, on the actual auction, a heart lead is unlikely absent the double precisely because it risks giving immediate discards. However, as your argument implies, having a general rule, even tho there will be exceptions for which you would, if you had infinite agreements, provide a different rule, makes considerable sense.

I love commas, btw!

[benlessard]

I glad to have read this post and the 1 by kfay. Ill have no problem convincing partner that X show a void in our suit.

These problems appears frequently and it always a pain me to see a slow pass at the 6 level.

However i see a major problem with X is that you are strongly inviting them to bid 6Nt.

[hatchett]

This seems a major problem with X showing exlicitly a void in partner's suit. The opponents will be able to run to 6NT a huge percentage of the time.

[billw55]

gnasher, on Nov 29 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

The hand which occasioned the question was x KJTxxxx xxx xx. I didn't actually hold this hand - someone gave it to me as a problem.

I wonder what the actual holder was trying to accomplish by bidding 3♥ with that hand. Did he really think he was going to obstruct the 2♣ bidder? Or that he really wants a heart lead?

If he passed quietly and then partner doubled to show a void, would there be any doubt about the lead?

[cherdanno]

billw55, on Nov 30 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

gnasher, on Nov 29 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

The hand which occasioned the question was x KJTxxxx xxx xx.  I didn't actually hold this hand - someone gave it to me as a problem.

I wonder what the actual holder was trying to accomplish by bidding 3♥ with that hand. Did he really think he was going to obstruct the 2♣ bidder? Or that he really wants a heart lead?

If he passed quietly and then partner doubled to show a void, would there be any doubt about the lead?

I admit it is tempting to bid 4H (depending on the colors) but 3H is absolutely normal.

[OleBerg]

billw55, on Nov 30 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

gnasher, on Nov 29 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

The hand which occasioned the question was x KJTxxxx xxx xx.  I didn't actually hold this hand - someone gave it to me as a problem.

I wonder what the actual holder was trying to accomplish by bidding 3♥ with that hand. Did he really think he was going to obstruct the 2♣ bidder?

Obviously. If it wouldn't bother you, then your methods after 2♣ are to poor.

Quote

Or that he really wants a heart lead?

Seems like the best lead, unless partner has a strong alternative.

Quote

If he passed quietly and then partner doubled to show a void, would there be any doubt about the lead?

Go directly to the "Beginners/intermidiates logic" -forum.