[661_Pete]

I was sitting east on this board; pairs MP, EW vul, dealer W:

---

The contract was 5♠X by South, after we had (not surprisingly) bid both minors strongly. Result was 2 down which was a bit disappointing because, as you can see, we missed a slam in either minor (other tables didn't!). It was hard to reach that slam with N-S interference!

I had doubled by way of a Lightner double, asking for a ♥ lead (I expected my K♠ to be finessed out otherwise, although as you can see Declarer had no way to do so). My partner didn't interpret my double as Lightner though, and led a club (naturally). Two heart ruffs, two minor Aces and the K♥ would have been an extra trick for us - but it wasn't to be.

Question: was it correct to assume a Lightner double here (can't remember the complete bidding sequence sorry)? Is it well known? Is it worth discussing this convention with partner beforehand?

[apollo1201]

Without the full sequence it is hard to tell but given you probably showed the hand belonged to you in the biddding, X is just a way to say they are going down and I don’t think we can outbid them unless you have some nice extras. You have forcing passes otherwise when you would like to bid more.

[HardVector]

I think that Lightner doubles are for just slam contracts, it may be at the 5 level as well, I'm not sure of that. Without the bidding, however, it's not clear that a double would be Lightner even if it applied to the 5 level. If the opponents are sacrificing, you are required to double if you feel the next level of bidding is not makeable. In this case, it isn't Lightner, it's a message to partner that you are uncertain about continuing further. Lightner doubles usually occur when the opponents are bidding strongly, bid a slam, and all of a sudden you double.

[TylerE]

Even if I had agree Lightner doubles I would never assume them to be on at the 5 level unless explicitly discussed - and if discussed, there's no debate.

[The_Badger]

"The Lightner double is a lead-directing double of a slam contract, developed by the bridge pioneer Mr. Theodore A. Lightner of New York City, New York, United States. He was born in the year 1893 and died in the year 1981. He was one of the leading bridge personalities in the early days of the evolving game of bridge."

Far more salient than whether this is a Lightner Double or not, Pete, which patently we have all concluded it isn't, is the bidding. I believe we would have a lot more to discuss here as it is an interesting hand, and I wonder how South finally arrived in 5♠X. There are a lot of decisions to consider on route to 5♠X. Is it possible to repost the hand with it? [I did note that you say you can't remember it, but please ask the other players for Pete's sake - excuse the obvious pun ]

[pescetom]

HardVector, on 2018-September-23, 14:29, said:

I think that Lightner doubles are for just slam contracts, it may be at the 5 level as well, I'm not sure of that. Without the bidding, however, it's not clear that a double would be Lightner even if it applied to the 5 level. If the opponents are sacrificing, you are required to double if you feel the next level of bidding is not makeable. In this case, it isn't Lightner, it's a message to partner that you are uncertain about continuing further. Lightner doubles usually occur when the opponents are bidding strongly, bid a slam, and all of a sudden you double.

I don't think it really has to be all of a sudden, you might have already bid a suit or even doubled, but for lead direction only: the important thing is that there is clearly no possibility of competition.