Lead

[jallerton]

So is his point that partner is more likely to lead a heart without the double than with one?

 

Not exactly. He was suggesting that partner is less likely to lead a potentially terminal diamond without a double than with one. He may have a point. Make a miniscule change to the opening leader's hand (♦J942 (or ♦Q742) instead of ♦J742) and now a diamond lead lets the contract through (if declarer reads the position) whereas declarer cannot get rid of his losing heart after a passive spade lead.

[JLOGIC]

Not exactly. He was suggesting that partner is less likely to lead a potentially terminal diamond without a double than with one. He may have a point. Make a miniscule change to the opening leader's hand (♦J942 (or ♦Q742) instead of ♦J742) and now a diamond lead lets the contract through (if declarer reads the position) whereas declarer cannot get rid of his losing heart after a passive spade lead.

 

That seems like a pretty good reason, not sure if it's correct or not but at least it was well thought out. Serves me right for attacking the non double without knowing partners exact hand heh.

[JLOGIC]

He didn't consider Justin's point about the inference from failing to double 6♣, although it's not clear how strong this inference is: after all, if he does have a red suit void 6♠x does rate to be very cheap with the fate of 6♣ unclear.

 

Out of curiosity what do you (or others) think about this? I might be projecting my aggressiveness with lightner doubles onto others, but there is no such thing as a cheap save if we have 200 or 500 (2 ruffs if we have the ace of spades and it lives). Saving might be considered insurance, but the state of the match seems to imply we should go for high upside rather than insurance...but ofc it's possible we win a big swing by saving if they make a lightner X in the same auction. It's always unclear though whats going on at the other tbale, starting with the unlikeliness that partner has a normal 2S bid w/r opp a PH here changing how the entire auction will go at the other table, and also changing how cheap our save might be and how likely partner is to have a side trick if we don't have the ace of spades cashing.

 

That was a little rambly so I guess a more clear question is do you ever remember saving vs a slam with a void and partner on lead? Do you think the state of the match makes this less likely? And do you think that partner being a passed hand so we know he doesn't have 6 spades or a ton of shape (albeit he could be 6-5 in the majors like he is) makes it a stronger inference? Genuinely curious how strong of an inference this should be...maybe I lightner too automatically in these spots and others don't.

[Finch]

To answer your questions, I don't know.... this is not a common auction; or even going back a bit it's not a common auction to get the point of deciding whether to save or lightner double with a void and partner on lead. Obviously the state (and length) of the match and the cheapness of the save are both hugely important

 

Hence the thread because I was interested in other people's thoughts.

 

(the last time I doubled instead of saving I conceded 6Hx making; this was particularly poor as our save would have made on the right lead; teammates conceded 6Dx+1. That was one of my rare >20 imp swings.)