[kayin801]

(1♦)-P-(1♥)-P
(1NT)-P-(3♦*)-P
(3NT)-P-(4♦)-P
(4NT)-P-(6♦)-X
(P)-P-(6NT)-?

---

3♦ was strong and forcing. So I don't remember the EXACT auction or hands (I tried to replicate it the best I could, but I think something is off), but it made me want to X 6♦ for a heart lead. Figure I'll mention that before people start calling me crazy for the X.

Considering I've already Xed, what does pass of 6NT mean? What does X mean? Does scoring format make a difference?

My partner and I have the following agreement: If we've made a lead directing X earlier in the auction and they bid on to slam, at IMPs a X of the final contract calls for a different lead than the one I asked for (pass asks they lead the suit I Xed), and at MP it still asks for the earlier lead, just going for a top (pass doesn't suggest to lead a different suit in this case). Is this a good agreement? Does the above situation apply to this rule (earlier X could have been made on a void)?

There was a BB hand where both tables let a slam through after this kind of situation.

[kfay]

kayin801, on Mar 2 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

(1♦)-P-(1♥)-P
(1NT)-P-(3♦*)-P
(3NT)-P-(4♦)-P
(4NT)-P-(6♦)-X
(P)-P-(6NT)-?

---

3♦ was strong and forcing. So I don't remember the EXACT auction or hands (I tried to replicate it the best I could, but I think something is off), but it made me want to X 6♦ for a heart lead. Figure I'll mention that before people start calling me crazy for the X.

Considering I've already Xed, what does pass of 6NT mean? What does X mean? Does scoring format make a difference?

My partner and I have the following agreement: If we've made a lead directing X earlier in the auction and they bid on to slam, at IMPs a X of the final contract calls for a different lead than the one I asked for (pass asks they lead the suit I Xed), and at MP it still asks for the earlier lead, just going for a top (pass doesn't suggest to lead a different suit in this case). Is this a good agreement? Does the above situation apply to this rule (earlier X could have been made on a void)?

There was a BB hand where both tables let a slam through after this kind of situation.

I remember the hand, clearly. Was one of the last 5 of the match and Bob/Italian Star ended up leading a ♣ from KQJ instead of a ♦, right? Push board.

Anyway after that hand I think Rodwell's on record for saying that the 2nd double is just trying to exact the maximum penalty. So playing with him, I might double again, the blacks are lying horribly for them and their only source of tricks is ♦s, (hopefully!!).

But playing the way you do, which I'm not convinced is bad, just might be catering to the relatively obscure, I wouldn't double, although maybe it's just impossible that this will make no matter what the lead.

[jjbrr]

I guess I'm chicken here too. I wouldn't have doubled 6♦.

But to answer your question, your agreement seems fine. On the other hand, don't double 6♦ if you can't beat 6NT obv, so is partner expected to double 6N?

[OleBerg]

jjbrr, on Mar 2 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

On the other hand, don't double 6♦ if you can't beat 6NT obv, so is partner expected to double 6N?

Not with you on this one.

You don't double because you have a sure set, and you do not need to believe that 6nt is inferior to 6♦ to double.

You double to direct a lead. If 6nt and 6♦ are equal contracts, then you have made the valuable lead-director "free of charge".

Even when you suspect that 6nt might be better than 6♦, it isn't always they run.


I have my doubts about the agreement. It is hard to imagine:

- Holding a hand with so many high cards, that I want one lead vs ♦'s and another vs nt.
- Being able to diagnose this.

The only time I'd want a different lead vs nt, is when my first double was based on a void. So the second double should only ask partner to change his lead, if it seems reasonable to expect it was a void double. Otherwise it should simply be penalty.

But I wouldn't make a penalty double here.

[jjbrr]

OleBerg, on Mar 2 2010, 02:21 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 2 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

On the other hand, don't double 6♦ if you can't beat 6NT obv, so is partner expected to double 6N?

Not with you on this one.

You don't double because you have a sure set, and you do not need to believe that 6nt is inferior to 6♦ to double.

You double to direct a lead. If 6nt and 6♦ are equal contracts, then you have made the valuable lead-director "free of charge".

Even when you suspect that 6nt might be better than 6♦, it isn't always they run.

I suspect in practice it's somewhere in between what you and I said. When lefty has bid NT twice (thrice?) already naturally, I think you should expect someone to run to NT more often than not, so you have to be more careful about lightner doubles. I definitely like a style where I can double if I have a void so I can get a ruff, and we'll worry about the second trick later. But you still have to keep the rest of the auction in mind when you do it. An auction like this one, if I were the partner of the doubler and they ran to 6NT, I would certainly expect us to beat this some substantial amount of the time.

[karlson]

I don't much care for these agreements which involve cancelling the previous lead suggestion. You're never going to know that you're going to get a second shot (for instance if you double a keycard response or something hoping to double slam later to pinpoint the lead of the other suit, what are you going to do if they stop in 5? You'll have to pass, and partner may make a terrible lead now). And on this hand as well, I think there's no way that doubling 6n should cancel a heart lead somehow. Surely partner can tell whether your heart holding is likely to be void or KJxx for the double of 6d.

[PhantomSac]

Yeah our X of 6D could be based on a desire to get a ruff... we dunno partner's spade length but it seems possible if we X 6D and pass 6N he will think we wanted a spade ruff (could be void). If we X and X we will definitely get a heart lead.

I would not have considered Xing 6D though, why is getting a heart lead so important? Where are the hearts going lol. I must have just been tryin to bluff them into 6N I guess...

[OleBerg]

PhantomSac, on Mar 2 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

Yeah our X of 6D could be based on a desire to get a ruff... we dunno partner's spade length but it seems possible if we X 6D and pass 6N he will think we wanted a spade ruff (could be void). If we X and X we will definitely get a heart lead.

I would not have considered Xing 6D though, why is getting a heart lead so important? Where are the hearts going lol. I must have just been tryin to bluff them into 6N I guess...

I'm not saying double is right, but wouldn't partner lead a spade from ♠K10754, the only lead allowing the contract to make?

[PhantomSac]

OleBerg, on Mar 2 2010, 04:24 PM, said:

PhantomSac, on Mar 2 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

Yeah our X of 6D could be based on a desire to get a ruff... we dunno partner's spade length but it seems possible if we X 6D and pass 6N he will think we wanted a spade ruff (could be void). If we X and X we will definitely get a heart lead.

I would not have considered Xing 6D though, why is getting a heart lead so important? Where are the hearts going lol. I must have just been tryin to bluff them into 6N I guess...

I'm not saying double is right, but wouldn't partner lead a spade from ♠K10754, the only lead allowing the contract to make?

It's possible he has that spade holding, but we do have 7 HCP so him having that exact holding is not that likely, and with us having a stiff spade them having 7 spades on this auction is very unlikely.

It's possible he would lead from it, even likely I'd say, but you never know.

It's possible that it would give up the 12th trick to let the contract in, but that seems less clear. For instance if parnter has only 5 spades, then dummy must have 3 and declarer 4 (with declarer bypassing). In that case, dummy is likely void in clubs (5530), and declarer probably has the AK (10 HCP already accounted for), so declarer could have pitched 2 spades on the clubs. If dummy has spade length and jumped to slam, it is quite possible they have a spade control which would be the ace.

So all of those things coming together and happening seems quite unlikely to me. So unlikely that I'm not sure why you would worry so much about that specific parlay enough that you just give away imps most of the time with a double.

A more likely scenario seems like declarer having xx opp AQT9x of hearts, and after low to the queen and king, he later has to guess what to do in hearts. He might well play for 3-3 hearts and ruff on if you have not made this double, but the double gives away the hearts.

Or that they're just cold, and you give up 5 imps or whatever for no reason.

[cloa513]

Do know your partner's overcall nature- conservative only opening hands with good spades or aggressive some good spades only?

[kayin801]

Ah, I found the actual hand. I think my thoughts at the time were that I didn't want a spade lead, which rated to be partner's long worthless suit on the bidding. Incidentally DF says it's beatable when played in the W but it makes in the E (DD of course), and I suspect that if partner leads a spade it might make in practice when I have to find 4 pitches on the pointed suits (though declarer has to read the position)

(1♦)-P-(1♥)-P
(1NT)-P-(3♦*)-P
(3NT)-P-(4♦)-P
(4NT)-P-(6♦)-X
(P)-P-(6NT)-?

---

They bid it funny btw. That might not be completely right, but I do remember the first 4 bids clearly.

[gnasher]

East's decision to run to 6NT wasn't very clever. From his point of view, it's unlikely that there will be a first-round ruff, because North didn't bid over 1♦. If the double is because the cards are lying badly, they're going to be lying badly in 6NT too. And it's still likely that we'll need a club ruff for the 12th trick.

[ArtK78]

North had better hold on to his three clubs or South will be squeezed in the rounded suits.

(This assumes that declarer scores 4 spade tricks)