Your lead

[Walddk]

I wouldn't have beaten the contract either, because I would also have led a spade. As I see it, the only chance to find a heart lead is if East passes over 1♦ (unlikely I admit). Personally, I would have overcalled 1♠, but it's a matter of style.

 

If my partner doubles 3♠ on the auction you give, he will get a spade lead. To me double doesn't mean: "I think I want a spade lead". By the way, I don't agree with the double of 3♠.

 

 

Roland

[Finch]

Personally, I would have overcalled 1♠, but it's a matter of style.

So would I. But then we wouldn't have had this problem, and the double is not absurd.

[whereagles]

LOL.. the reason pard doubled 3♠ with such a moth-eaten suit is obvious. He didn't want us to lead away from our would-be Kxxx of hearts <_<

[mike777]

As east, as on many hands I would have no idea what suit I want partner to lead.

I would only use the very general rule of wanting partner to lead from her strongest and longest or where she thinks we have the strongest and longest fit given my bidding.

 

Of course this is a general lead rule so do not expect this to always be the winning lead.

 

I would not x 3S as I am not sure that is the our best suit/lead from my viewpoint. I also realize I double for the lead much less so than many players on BBO. Does anyone else think x for the lead is vastly overrated/abused or is this very much a minority viewpoint?

[Al_U_Card]

Does anyone else think x for the lead is vastly overrated/abused or is this very much a minority viewpoint?

To the extent that it really is to stop pard from making a "normal" and potentially disastrous lead when there is a good alternative that you can suggest......

[Kalvan14]

I would have doubled for t/o on the 1st round, but then I would have not Xed 3♠ (it would be close, but spades are not good enough). I disagree with the double of 3NT as a final confirmation of a spades lead: wouldn't it be overkill? Give him AQT9x in spades (and maybe Q intead of king in clubs) and he cannot be sure 3 NT is not making.

 

Someone might argue that the first t/o double denied very good spades. I suppose it's a matter of style and agreement.

 

IMHO, with Qx or Jx in spades and Qxxx in hearts, I'd be likely to lead the spade honor even without the double.

[Free]

I would've started with 1NT showing 5+♠ and 4(+)♥ (this however is an agreement). Without agreements I'd rather just overcall 1♠.

 

I also don't like the lead asking Dbl: since we already showed a decent 5 card, I don't have to say it's great when it's not. Partner will lead ♠ if he has something anyway, but when he has absolutely nothing there's no need to lead that suit.

 

With Toothbrush I'd probably defeat the contract, but with other partners I probably won't.

[kenberg]

Obviously I won't get far defending the double of 3S since it is a heart lead that will set the contract. However, fools rush in...

 

The heart lead works here because declarer needs to surrender the lead twice. That's somewhat unusual on the given auction. Opening leader pretty much has to hope clubs can be stopped but has no reason to believe declarer lacks nine tricks after surrendering a club. The doubler sees the ace of diamonds but with Kx in clubs has reason to be pessimistic in that suit.

 

A reasonable hope for doubler is that spades establish with one loss, and that partner holds the heart king. He can see declarer taking six clubs, the spade that he gives while establishing his suit, and the ace of hearts. That's eight, and the ace of diamonds prevents nine.

 

Wrong it is, but I don't think it particularly unlikely. But it is wrong. I won't try to defend this further.

 

Ken