[kenrexford]

If a double asks for an unusual lead, and if the default is to lead the first suit bid by dummy, then a 4♥ double or 5♥ double would ask for a heart lead, right?

So, if you do not double 4♥ and do not double 5♥, then partner will presumably understand to lead something other than a heart, if you don't double the slam, right?

So, if partner will lead something other than a heart when you do not double 4♥ or 5♥, then why double at the end to reaffirm that which you already told him by not doubling 4♥ or 5♥? Shouldn't doubling cancel out the inference from the prior failures to double?

BTW -- double asking specifically for a lead of dummy's suit is really stupid anyway when the bid is a splinter. The agreement here is dumb, if that's what the agreement really is.

[cherdano]

Ken, without a double opening leader will lead the minor suit where he hopes to build up a trick, e.g. a Qxx or Kxx suit. With the double, opening leader will lead his longer minor to find partner's void. Is that really so difficult to understand?
Btw, a heart lead is so unlikely to be useful on this auction that it seems pretty silly that you apparently want to have 3 ways of asking for a heart lead (double 4H, or double 5H, or double 6S).

[ralph23]

Trumpace, on Aug 9 2007, 05:50 PM, said:

ralph23, on Aug 9 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

<snip>
OH, ok they've got a method for showing a specific singleton, and no method for showing a void. These hypothetical good-card holders !!  

I never said they have no method to show a void. It is just that I don't know about it, and didn't bother to ask them (lol inspite of them being figments of my imagination).

What ?? You mean ....they aren't real ???? omg.....

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Aug 9 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Ken, without a double opening leader will lead the minor suit where he hopes to build up a trick, e.g. a Qxx or Kxx suit. With the double, opening leader will lead his longer minor to find partner's void. Is that really so difficult to understand?
Btw, a heart lead is so unlikely to be useful on this auction that it seems pretty silly that you apparently want to have 3 ways of asking for a heart lead (double 4H, or double 5H, or double 6S).

I suppose that I have been reading this question wrong, thinking that the majority definition of a "Lightner Double" is the one that I find silly -- an absolute demand for dummy's first bid suit, here hearts.

If you then assume the minority view on Lightner, the lead of an "unusual" suit, and assume the arguments made that "of course" you'd double hearts early on if you wanted a heart lead, then the late double must ask for that "unusual lead" of a suit that you previously had passively inferred against.

The perhaps poorly-argued Devil's Advocate position I was trying to make here was that which you seem to be using against me -- that we would have three ways to signal a heart lead directly and nothing else. I don't want that -- I think that this is silliness.

The agreement that I usually have is that a late double in a splinter situation asks for the lower of the other two options and that an even later double asks for the higher, if I know that I'm going to get two chances to double (as here). So, I'd double 5♥ to infer a request for a club lead, or 6♠ for a diamond lead. That seems a lot better than requiring partner to pick which 4-card minor to lead.

[ralph23]

Trumpace, on Aug 9 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

skaeran, on Aug 9 2007, 03:57 PM, said:

Heartlead???

Partner is obviously void in one of the minors and has got an ace in addition, and hopes I can diagnose his void due to disparity in my minor suit lenghts. Unfortunately I can't, but I'm not dead yet.

I'll lead the ♣K. If partner is void in ♦'s and has got the ♣A I'll still be on lead to give him his ♦ ruff. If I hit the void he'll ruff my king and cash his ace.

Excellent!

That was the intent of this problem. I hope people are convinced

The club King is on a probability basis the best, but let's not forget that it is not foolproof...

Partner can have four combinations of Ace and void:

1. Club void and diamond Ace.
2. Club void and heart Ace.
3. Diamond void and club Ace.
4. Diamond void and heart Ace.

THe King of Clubs gets the money on 1,2 and 3.

It could be the only lead to give away the contract on 4, of course, as declarer may have started with AQJ in clubs, for instance, and had a club and heart loser all day... until the opening lead !!

Still, 3 chances out of 4 is not bad odds (it's not precisely 75% but close enough for government work...).

I admit that I do find the lead-directing double confusing, but if you do correctly diagnose partner's thinking, it was a brilliiant double.

I find it confusing b/c I (apparently holding the minority view) thought it meant "find an unusual lead, partner, and not a trump". And what in the world could be MORE unusual than a heart, when partner already had TWO chances to double an artificial bid for a heart lead? I mean, THAT's really really unusual !!

But .... naw, that's just TOO crazy. Even MY partner is not that crazy...

Without the double I'd lead a low minor card. Partner's talking me into leading a minor King, if I'm lucky enough to have one.... That gives us an EXTRA chance, when partner has case 3 above (club Ace and diamond void). Had I led a LOW club and case 3 was true, then declarer would prevail, as he obviously has a stiff club.

[vuroth]

ralph23, on Aug 9 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

Don't just tell him responder's hand ! We're not as defenders entitled to know what responder actually has; only what their agreements are.

I assumed the asterisks were opponents explanations. Not much else makes sense, really.

If the agreement seems weird, well, I don't think that an example from a Sharif book is likely to come from this century.

There's probably a good lesson in this, though. Even if opponent's explanation of their system seems odd, believe it. If it turns out that their agreement was singleton or void, call the director. If it turns out LHO bid it with a void despite the agreement, shrug it off.

V

[vuroth]

Jlall, on Aug 9 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

The king of clubs is a lead that every beginner should find.

Either you're using a definition of beginner that I'm unfamiliar with, or I need to quit this game and find something easier to master.

[cherdano]

vuroth, on Aug 10 2007, 12:05 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 9 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

The king of clubs is a lead that every beginner should find.

Either you're using a definition of beginner that I'm unfamiliar with, or I need to quit this game and find something easier to master.

Instead, I suggest you try to improve at guessing when Justin is being sarcastic.

[vuroth]

cherdano, on Aug 10 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

Instead, I suggest you try to improve at guessing when Justin is being sarcastic.

Could be. In all honesty, I find the internet to be simply an awful medium for sarcasm. With no tone of voice to back it up, it becomes very hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic and when they're just off their rocker.

Thanks for pointing out the possible interpretation I was overlooking, though.

V

[cherdano]

Btw, I am not even convinced the ♣K lead is right. If we lead ♣K and don't hit partner's void, then this is only helpful in 1/3 of the cases (when his presumed ace is in clubs). It also assumes that opener has a club singleton or has Blackwooded with two fast club losers. If we lead a diamond and don't hit partner's void, is the chance we score ♣K later really worse than that?

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Aug 10 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

If we lead ♣K and don't hit partner's void, then this is only helpful in 1/3 of the cases (when his presumed ace is in clubs).

If we lead the club and don't hit the void by doing that, then partner's Ace is either the heart ace or the club ace. Ex hypothesi, he has a void in diamonds here. So it is helpful in one case out of two.

There are four cases to consider:

1. Club void and diamond Ace.
2. Club void and heart Ace.
3. Diamond void and club Ace.
4. Diamond void and heart Ace.

THe King of Clubs gets the money on 1,2 and 3.

It could be the only lead to give away the contract on 4, of course, as declarer may have started with AQJ in clubs, for instance, and had a club and heart loser all day... until the opening lead !!

But we win in 3 possibilities out of 4.

Leading a low minor card is 50-50: either we hit the void, or we don't. Leading the King raises this closer to 75-25, {NB - although it won't come quite to that b/c we know declarer and partner share 8 hearts, but the other 3 players share both 9♣ and 9♦. So partner's "average" heart holding is 4 but his average minor holding is 3. I haven't thought how the bidding and other info may affect this, am just calculating it a priori.}


If we lead a low club and miss the void (which will therefore be in diamonds), lots of bad things can happen:

a. Dummy has the Ace of clubs and declarer has a stiff club. (or less likely, vice versa).
b. Declarer has Ax of clubs and can rid of his small one on an extra winner in dummy.

I'm not mathematician enough to calculate the relative odds of low club versus King of clubs, by any stretch of my wild imagination, but impressionistically King seems imho a better gamble.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-August-11, 07:48