Lead-directing doubles

[bluenikki]

In 1974, my team reached the Grand National Teams knockout stage for central New York. It was unflighted in those days. My wife and I were very inexperienced, but our teammates were very good. Opposing was the team that was had dominated imps events in the area.

 

But at the half, we had a useful lead.

 

And then, early in the second half, I heard a Jacoby transfer 2[diamonds on my right. I held KJxxx in the suit, and it seemed a good idea to double. Redoubled, making 4. We still won the match. As I said, our teammates were very good.

 

That was a life lesson for me. Two lessons actually. First, be certain you want the lead. Second, be sure you have enough solidity in the suit to stop the second overtrick.

 

But then came the last quarter this year's Soloway semifinals. A player on the team with the lead heard a Kokish auction 2[clubs - 2[diamonds ; 2[hearts - 2[spades ending on his right. He held AJxxx and out. He doubled. -1040.

 

And then, in the last quarter of the Soloway finals, a player (with the lead again!) heard 2[clubs - 2[diamonds and chose to double with KJ9xx . He had two queens and a jack on the side, so there was only one redoubled overtrick. Still, a 7 imp loss.

 

Clearly, experts today disagree with my life lessons.

 

Does this really win on balance?

[DavidKok]

I think lead doubles are often overrated, often to the point of being very bad. For a lead-directing double to meaningfully profit at IMPs you need to:

• Set their contract on the suggested lead.
  
• Not set it on a different lead.
  
• Partner needs to not have been planning to lead your suit in the first place.
  

Furthermore, you need partner to be on lead (on many auctions the opponents haven't committed to who will become declarer yet) and you need the opponents to bid to the too high contract despite your warning. In return you are giving the opponents two extra steps of bidding space as well as an offer to play (re)doubled. Most of the time the gains just don't offset the risks, the target you are aiming for is very slim.

 

There are some good stories of auctions such as (1♥)-P-(3♦* 9-11 4(+) hearts)-X; (...pause)3♥ - a.p. where opener was dissuaded from a cold game because of diamond weakness in their hand, but keep in mind this is a rare situation (opponents have already shown a 9-card fit so there is some law protection, also partner is near guaranteed to be on lead). Plus, even on this auction experienced pairs will have agreements about pass and redouble (for me: both are positive, weaker than 4♥ but stronger than 3♥ or a slam try, and pass shows diamond length while redouble shows shortness) so they might gain from your double anyway.

[Cyberyeti]

Sometimes you gain by simply stopping partner making a disastrous lead of their own suit even if leading yours does nothing. I'm certainly more likely to make these doubles at MPs

[LBengtsson]

Just a quick take. If X-ing for a lead at a low level, your suit if of 5 cards should have some solid honor aspect about it, not just KJxxx, or a 6th card if the suit is with holes.

 

5 card suits should have a 10 with two honors, and six card suits should have at least two honors imo. It does not guarantee that the opps. will XX, but it is better insurance against it.

[DavidKok]

Doubling (and bidding) for the lead more at MPs makes sense because you can also win big if it saves an overtrick, or an extra undertrick. That being said you still have to be aware that good opponents will be able to take advantage of your interference. I am usually very happy when the opponents double my bids for the lead, the extra steps are incredible and sometimes we get to play something redoubled.

 

At IMPs I prefer it for most lead-directing doubles to also suggest sacrificing or taking out their possible game, especially if not vulnerable. Profitable sacrifices and the rare double game swing profits way more than aiming for a killing lead while telling the opponents.

[pescetom]

Doubling (and bidding) for the lead more at MPs makes sense because you can also win big if it saves an overtrick, or an extra undertrick. That being said you still have to be aware that good opponents will be able to take advantage of your interference. I am usually very happy when the opponents double my bids for the lead, the extra steps are incredible and sometimes we get to play something redoubled.

 

At IMPs I prefer it for most lead-directing doubles to also suggest sacrificing or taking out their possible game, especially if not vulnerable. Profitable sacrifices and the rare double game swing profits way more than aiming for a killing lead while telling the opponents.

I was a bit surprised by your opponent's double of diamonds in the 6 spades auction, which it turns out was based on KJxxx.. at best. What's your take on that situation?

[DavidKok]

I think pass would have been better there, and caused serious headaches for North with an undisclosed void.

[bluenikki]

I think lead doubles are often overrated, often to the point of being very bad. For a lead-directing double to meaningfully profit at IMPs you need to:

• Set their contract on the suggested lead.
  
• Not set it on a different lead.
  
• Partner needs to not have been planning to lead your suit in the first place.
  

Furthermore, you need partner to be on lead (on many auctions the opponents haven't committed to who will become declarer yet) and you need the opponents to bid to the too high contract despite your warning. In return you are giving the opponents two extra steps of bidding space as well as an offer to play (re)doubled. Most of the time the gains just don't offset the risks, the target you are aiming for is very slim.

 

There are some good stories of auctions such as (1♥)-P-(3♦* 9-11 4(+) hearts)-X; (...pause)3♥ - a.p. where opener was dissuaded from a cold game because of diamond weakness in their hand, but keep in mind this is a rare situation (opponents have already shown a 9-card fit so there is some law protection, also partner is near guaranteed to be on lead). Plus, even on this auction experienced pairs will have agreements about pass and redouble (for me: both are positive, weaker than 4♥ but stronger than 3♥ or a slam try, and pass shows diamond length while redouble shows shortness) so they might gain from your double anyway.

My question about winning on balance was not about lead-direction doubles in general.

 

It was about doubling with a broken suit.

[DavidKok]

There are situations where it can be right to ask for a lead with a broken suit. All the considerations I listed should help you decide - the opponents should not (profitably) be able to play in your suit, it had better be the correct lead, and the extra bidding space should not let the opponents get to a better contract. With a broken suit all of these are more of a gamble, but it is impossible to tell in general. It certainly makes the proposition less attractive though.

 

I think trying to make hard rules about suit quality is not a great idea. You are already trying to hit a very narrow target, and now you're chipping away at what little remains by banning certain hand types. Arguably it is better to use double for something other than lead-directing instead.

[bluenikki]

There are situations where it can be right to ask for a lead with a broken suit. All the considerations I listed should help you decide - the opponents should not (profitably) be able to play in your suit, it had better be the correct lead, and the extra bidding space should not let the opponents get to a better contract. With a broken suit all of these are more of a gamble, but it is impossible to tell in general. It certainly makes the proposition less attractive though.

 

And yet, two experts this week made doubles that seem like madness to me, which contributed to blowing leads.

 

Apparently, they think it's winning tactics.

[helene_t]

I think it's rare that lead-directing doubles get successfully redoubled (or just successfully passed out). I have tried it a few times with robots without much success, and I have a vague memory that I have seen it once in a top match, and on a couple of occasions wondered if partner and I could have achieved it if we had better agreements about our passes and redoubles.

 

That said, it's not very common that lead-directing doubles lead to good results either. In some situations there may be better uses for the double. For example, I would prefer a double of the 2♥->spades transfer just to show hearts, inviting partner to compete with a fit, but not necessarily wanting a lead (although you will usually want the lead also, at least against a notrump contract). Especially if opps play weak NT.

[bluenikki]

I think it's rare that lead-directing doubles get successfully redoubled (or just successfully passed out).

And yet, this week, at the highest level . . . .

 

Is it _really_ rare?

 

Two black swans in two days?

[AL78]

And yet, this week, at the highest level . . . .

 

Is it _really_ rare?

 

Two black swans in two days?

 

Whether an action is sound or not on average cannot be determined from two non-randomly chosen examples.

 

Is it possible the dubious doubles were desperation attempts from a pair behind in a match to claw back imps or MPs. If you are playing opponents who seem to land in the perfect spot as if guided by radar then play the cards as if double dummy, one might feel there is little hope other than to gamble on a low probability action that will reap rewards if successful but won't make things any worse if it fails.

[bluenikki]

Whether an action is sound or not on average cannot be determined from two non-randomly chosen examples.

 

Is it possible the dubious doubles were desperation attempts from a pair behind in a match to claw back imps or MPs. If you are playing opponents who seem to land in the perfect spot as if guided by radar then play the cards as if double dummy, one might feel there is little hope other than to gamble on a low probability action that will reap rewards if successful but won't make things any worse if it fails.

The perps were in the lead at the time.

 

That's why I inferred it was part of their normal tactics.