Partner lightners

[MFA]

You, south, have picked up your usual hand:

 

[hv=d=w&s=s86542h9dj7643cj4]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

They bid

1NT- 2♦ 15-17 & twoway stayman

2♠ - 3♠ 5card hearts!

3NT - 4♣ natural

4♦ - 4NT cue&1430

5♣ - 6♣

X'ed by partner.

 

What is your lead?

[Walddk]

♥9. He has ♥Axxxx and knows I have a singleton because he can count to 13. If he doesn't double, I won't lead a heart.

 

Roland

[pclayton]

♥9. He has ♥Axxxx and knows I have a singleton because he can count to 13. If he doesn't double, I won't lead a heart.

 

Roland

I'd still lead a heart without the double. Why can't pard have the ♣Axx, so he can't be sure that we have a 2nd trump?

 

With the double a heart looks right. MIght even get this more than -1.

[OleBerg]

A spade.

 

Partner can have two reasons for lightnering: A void, or a trick to be set up.

 

Voids are out. It is not possible to construct a distribution, where partner has a void.

 

So he has a trick to be set up, namely in dummys first bid suit.

[OleBerg]

The ideé, that a double is required to lead a heart, does in no way appeal to me.

No matter how good my partner is, I do not expect her to double, just because she has four hearts and a soft ace.

[jdonn]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the auction? Was it 2♠ or 3♠ that shows five hearts?

[Walddk]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the auction? Was it 2♠ or 3♠ that shows five hearts?

3♠

[NickRW]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the auction? Was it 2♠ or 3♠ that shows five hearts?

No, you're not the only one.

[Walddk]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the auction? Was it 2♠ or 3♠ that shows five hearts?

No, you're not the only one.

2♠ was natural as a response to a Stayman inquiry. 3♠ by responder next showed 5 hearts (3♥ would have been spade support). Then 3NT showed a doubleton heart.

[jdonn]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the auction? Was it 2♠ or 3♠ that shows five hearts?

3♠

In that case I understand the nature of your answer, I simply disagree. Partner would expect us to lead a singleton heart if we had it and didn't have an ace. I don't buy that just because partner knows the ruff should come in our hand, this reverts to some sort of reverse-lightner situation. It's hard enough to know which suit to give partner a ruff, if we also have to consider suits where we might need to get a ruff.... not to mention, partner doesn't know we have a heart if he holds Axxxx, declarer could be 6-4 I assume.

 

I agree their auction makes a ruff in either spades or diamonds unlikely unless one of them is bidding strangely, but maybe one of them is. Or maybe there was a misunderstanding about the 3♠ bid? In any case spades seems more likely to me so I lead a spade.

[skjaeran]

This whole thing is weird.

 

I don't need my partner to double to tell me I've got a singleton to lead. Lacking an ace, I'd normally lead my singleton, hoping to hit partner with the ace or the trump ace. So this double is NOT about leading hearts.

 

The bidding seems to indicate that dummy is 4234 and declarer 1525 (or maybe 2524/2514 with a spade control). That indicates a diamond lead to me, but then partner would rather double 4♦.

 

Not sure if this leads me towards any solution at all. I'm just leading a spade.

[cherdano]

I think partner is doubling for a spade lead (dummy's first bid suit), having ♠AQ. Well, at least I hope it is ♠AQ and not ♠AQx.

[Walddk]

I think partner is doubling for a spade lead (dummy's first bid suit), having ♠AQ. Well, at least I hope it is ♠AQ and not ♠AQx.

But declarer bid 4NT, so he must have a spade control of some kind; singleton or the king. Declarer has more than 500 internationals to his name, so he would not use keycard ask without a spade control.

 

Therefore, partner can't have AK or AQ in spades.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

I agree with the heart lead, for several reasons.

 

1. I cannot construct a hand, consistent with the auction, on which partner ruffs a pointed suit.

 

2. even if partner holds AK of spades, declarer has a stiff, partner expects declarer has a stiff, and so partner cannot expect a spade lead to be the winner

 

3. I don't agree that partner would always expect us to lead a stiff heart absent a double. After all, if his holding were something like Q10xxx and declarer held AKJ8x, and partner lacked the club Ace, I doubt that the heart will turn out well.. or QJxxx, with declarer with AK10xx etc. Surely declarer, absent any other clue may be about to try the AK, either after or before pulling trump, and won't enjoy the 5-1 break. Whereas, after we lead the revelatory 9, opener merely double-finesses partner to score at least one heart trick, by strength, that he wouldn't score otherwise.

 

So while partner may think that we MIGHT lead a heart absent the double, when we hold a stiff, he WON'T be certain that we will. And thus the double CAN be read as asking us to make the lead.

[jdonn]

1. I cannot construct a hand, consistent with the auction, on which partner ruffs a pointed suit.

I agree that it's difficult if not impossible (of course who says their hands are consistent with the auction), but two comments on this:

- We can only tell that by our hand, when it's easily possible on another day for us to hold a six or seven card suit. Partner doesn't know we can tell he probably doesn't have a void.

- The fact it's unlikely to work (in abstract) is a reason the double SHOULD call for such a lead, since we wouldn't otherwise be likely to find it.

 

3. I don't agree that partner would always expect us to lead a stiff heart absent a double. After all, if his holding were something like Q10xxx and declarer held AKJ8x, and partner lacked the club Ace, I doubt that the heart will turn out well.. or QJxxx, with declarer with AK10xx etc. Surely declarer, absent any other clue may be about to try the AK, either after or before pulling trump, and won't enjoy the 5-1 break. Whereas, after we lead the revelatory 9, opener merely double-finesses partner to score at least one heart trick, by strength, that he wouldn't score otherwise.

I really don't understand this whole argument. We wouldn't lead a stiff heart holding an ace, so what the situation might be if partner lacks the club ace doesn't matter. Anyway, of course it COULD blow the contract, but at least a large percentage of the time it's clearly the most likely road to a set. Partner knows if we hold a singleton and no ace, that is usually going to be our lead. Do you really want double to say "lead what you were probably going to lead anyway"?

[mikeh]

I agree that it's difficult if not impossible (of course who says their hands are consistent with the auction), but two comments on this:

- We can only tell that by our hand, when it's easily possible on another day for us to hold a six or seven card suit. Partner doesn't know we can tell he probably doesn't have a void.

- The fact it's unlikely to work (in abstract) is a reason the double SHOULD call for such a lead, since we wouldn't otherwise be likely to find it.

 

There is a difference between playing partner for an unlikely hand, and thus inferring that the lead shows the unlikely hand, and playing him for an impossible hand. I underbid when I said that it was difficult to construct a hand with a void... it is more than that: unless the opps are insane or utterly incompetent, and we know they are not, it is impossible to construct a hand with a void in partner's hand. Heck, I tried to give rho a void in spades for his 4N... a psychological call by him based on possession of the missing keycards after the diamond cue, but the auction still made no sense.. and, if he has that holding, partner doubled on the spade A as well as his diamond void, so we are not beating the contract anyway... no way does partner hold a diamond void and 2 Aces

 

Once we realize that partner DOESN'T have a void, arguing that he can't know we know this, makes no sense. He doesn't have a void, so he is NOT doubling to get a ruff. We may argue that his double is an error.. since he SHOULD think we are going to lead a long side suit, expecting the ruff.. but that is a waste of time. We have to assume a meaning that it consistent with the fact that he is NOT void, and yet still thinks we can beat the contract.

 

 

 

I really don't understand this whole argument. We wouldn't lead a stiff heart holding an ace, so what the situation might be if partner lacks the club ace doesn't matter.

 

I agree that you don't understand my argument :) It does matter if he has the club A. If he holds the club A, preferably stiff or Ax, he will want us leading the stiff heart.. just as he would if his Ace was in hearts. But if he has a side A and a vulnerable heart holding, he won't want us leading hearts, because we blow that suit, and the opps pull trump before we get the ruff.

[SoTired]

I lead a spade because that is what partner asked me to do.

 

Anyway, why can't dummy be 5224 and declarer 3514?

[jdonn]

I underbid when I said that it was difficult to construct a hand with a void... it is more than that: unless the opps are insane or utterly incompetent, and we know they are not, it is impossible to construct a hand with a void in partner's hand.

West: 5233

East: 3505

 

West: 4144

East: 0544

 

It doesn't matter that hands with these shapes might bid differently. It is more than conceivable that extremely good players good bid that way with those shapes. I won't say you would do it, I won't say it's likely, but it would hardly be the first time good players would bid the same hands differently.

 

Is your argument really "double SHOULD show a void in abstract, but since I can tell from my hand partner doesn't have a void he must mean it as something else this time"? Sorry but I don't buy logic like that without proof he can't have a void, which is hard to come by. Especially with such a well known meaning for a bid. You can also take the same logic a step farther. Partner can't double to suggest anything other than a void because he doesn't know that we can tell he doesn't have one! Unless of course he is insane or utterly incompetent (sorry couldn't resist :)).

 

What are you going to say to him when you lead a heart and your "insane or utterly incompetent" opponents held one of the above shapes? Or the shape SoTired suggests (on which I have seen Eric Greco open 1NT)? Impossible indeed...

[MFA]

I didn't play the board myself, but count me in with the heart leaders. When holding this hand, I think partner's double should mean that he can give me a heart ruff.

 

Two points come to my mind:

 

1. Partner is very likely to know about my singleton heart, and he will then also know if I can get a ruff or not. (Ok, with ♣Axx it's a gamble for him, but he must hope I'm not 1-1 and double)

 

2. If I lead a heart and I can't get a ruff, this could easily be disastrous for the defense, since I'm butchering the heart suit, which could have been a nasty surprise for declarer. Also I'm giving up a tempo, if a diamond lead or a spade lead could have given us two winners.

I feel that some posters seem to underestimate this.

 

Is it really sensible to use the precious lightner double to try to cater to a different ruff than the ♥-ruff? I think not. This is so small a target, when the heart ruff is such a big theme of the hand.

 

Note that the big gain comes when partner doesn't double, because we could then try a ♠ or a ♦ instead of the hopeless and dangerous singleton.

 

If partner does in fact have a spade or a diamond void, he can still double and pray. There will only be a conflict when we have a singleton heart as here.

 

Is this logic realistic to use at the table? I think so. I like to define a lightner double of a slam as "I think this one goes down in spite of their convincing bidding - please figure out why", rather than "please lead xxx".

Freestyle and co-operation will get a good shot at solving most problems, rigid diktats will only work in very specific situations.

[Walddk]

Excellent points Michael. Let me add that partner did indeed have AJxxx in hearts. Same contract at the two tables, same info at both; no-one doubled and a diamond was led in both rooms. Flat board.

 

And good luck in Beijing! Michael Askgaard is a member of the Danish open team and is leaving tonight European time. 10 hours in the air for him. What a thrill :)

 

Roland

[Hanoi5]

My partner could double spades and diamonds asking for a lead in those suits. I also lead a heart.

[jdonn]

Note that the big gain comes when partner doesn't double, because we could then try a ♠ or a ♦ instead of the hopeless and dangerous singleton.

Does the big loss come when declarer is 6-4, partner didn't double because he thought you had a doubleton, and the heart ruff was the only way to beat it? Or does it come when declarer is 6-4, partner doubles thinking you have a singleton, and you don't beat it at all?

 

My partner could double spades and diamonds asking for a lead in those suits. I also lead a heart.

You would double 2♠ with a void, just in case they are about to bid a slam (in some other suit!) and your partner will be on lead, praying they forget to play the hand there the other 95% of the time? Good luck with that :)

 

What would heart leaders be leading if you had six spades (or diamonds) with your singleton heart? How about seven?

[Walddk]

Note that the big gain comes when partner doesn't double, because we could then try a ♠ or a ♦ instead of the hopeless and dangerous singleton.

Does the big loss come when declarer is 6-4, partner didn't double because he thought you had a doubleton, and the heart ruff was the only way to beat it? Or does it come when declarer is 6-4, partner doubles thinking you have a singleton, and you don't beat it at all?

Hi Johs,

 

I can't speak for Michael, but don't expect to get a reply for at least 3 weeks. As I wrote above, he is on his way to Beijing as I'm writing this and won't return until the 20th. He may have other things on his mind even if he has access to the internet.

 

Roland

[gnasher]

Does the big loss come when declarer is 6-4, partner didn't double because he thought you had a doubleton, and the heart ruff was the only way to beat it?

I don't think that the 6-4 problem is particularly likely. People often treat 6-4s as one-suiters, especially if the suit is of the sort that could withstand a 4-1 break.

 

If you know that partner will double when he has five hearts and a round ace, and you are likely to be able to guess whether his double is of this type or of the void-showing type, then on average you'll be better off than if you didn't have this knowledge. That is true even if occasionally the additional information causes you to do the wrong thing when otherwise you'd have done the right thing.

 

Or does it come when declarer is 6-4, partner doubles thinking you have a singleton, and you don't beat it at all?

If his ace is in trumps you will still beat the contract; if his ace is in hearts the loss will probably be only 6 IMPs.

 

 

I think that the most likely cause of a big loss is when opening leader is uncertain whether he is being asked to lead his singleton or to give his partner a ruff. That wouldn't apply on this hand, but it would do if we had a six-card suit.