[the hog]

I can't understand the H leaders. I would be expected to lead a H without the double. If the 2H bidder KNOWS that a H lead will beat the contract, he just has to pass and beat it undoubled. The double therefore specifically asks for a NON heart lead. Pd has a very good side suit and is asking you to find it. He also has an entry. I would lead a C.

Whoah! I just saw the hand. Your partner is an idiot and his "reasoning" is non existent. Take Mikeh's advice and leave immediately. This guy should be banned for abuse to bridge!

Incidentally saying a X of this type, (and I don't mean this particular X here!), doesn't exist or is ridiculous is a foolish comment. How many players posting here have pre empted and then doubled a contract for the lead because they hold a void? The situation is analogous. You expect pd to lead your suit. The X cancels that expectation and asks pd to use his brains and find something else. I would have expected a side suit of KQJT at least one outside Ace and maybe another card, and given the definition of the opening bid, this falls within that ambit. Perhaps he even operated with a 5/5 and a fine second suit. (3rd seat opening).

[Walddk]

You must have got the vulnerability wrong, or if you didn't your partner's reasoning is even more bizarre. He invented a non-existent double without telling you and on top of that he suggested that the double was for take-out!

East's 3NT was somewhat ambitious but he struck gold. He can't have been happy when he saw the double. The fact is that your partner's hand was too good. Give him a small club instead of the queen (you have Qxx now) and 3NT goes for a phone number on a heart lead.

You take the double out and your partner will tell you that you're a fool. This is all sheer nonsense in my view.

Roland

P.S.: I now see that you changed the vulnerability (you had NS vul first). It doesn't change my view though. The double is ridiculous and the explanation afterwards makes absolutely no sense.

[Codo]

Two questions to all "double asks for a heart lead" posters.

1. If double asks for a Heart lead, what do pass ask for?

2. How do you show pd that he should find an unusual lead?

Maybe I get answers to make up my mind. As long as I don`t have them, I stick with the Hog and try to lead something unusual. I had tried a Diamond.

Of course pds explanaition of his double and his reasoning was something very humourus and nothing to lost many thoughts about. There are one million hands where you could not see that 3 NT is icecold and 4 Heart a nice save and he just gave you the choice between 3 NT Xx + 2 and 4 H X -4. It had worked in this very special case. And even here it did not, because your bridge logic -and the logic of all of us- was different from his thinking.

[Gerben42]

To quote Bill Jacobs:
My partners have AKQxx in a side suit exactly twice when they open a weak two. The first time and the last time, on the same hand.

Dbl = I don't think they have a ♥ stopper
Pass = I have no reason to Dbl

However it specifically said that 2♥ can be intermediate, so AKQxx in a side suit is possible apparently... I lead a non-♥ in this case.

The Dbl on the actual hand was misguided. Either 3NT makes on a ♥ lead or it does not. If it doesn't, why try to misdirect partner with a Dbl?

[helene_t]

I agree with partner's reasoning but he shouldn't blame you for not sacrificing. You have approximately the hand he gambled on when he doubled 3NT for penalties. With optimal defense, 4♥ goes for 500 which is not surprising and not worth as a possible phantom sacrifice. Who says dummy has ♠K?

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Mar 7 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

With optimal defense, 4♥ goes for 500 which is not surprising and not worth as a possible phantom sacrifice. Who says dummy has ♠K?

Please tell how 4♥X goes 3 down (500) non vulnerable on any defence? EW can take a spade ruff, but then they won't get a diamond trick, or they can set up a diamond trick and the spade ruff vanishes.

Down 2.

Roland

[helene_t]

Oh yes, after the spade ruff there's one free spade for a diamond discard.

Maybe I should stop trying to do double dummy analysis, I always get it wrong.

[kenberg]

As I get it, the opening 2H showed some unspecified length in hearts (5+) and some unspecified strength (weak or maybe intermediate) and the double was designed to clarify the situation after which you were supposed to have the correct holding, draw the correct inferences, and make the correct call. Maybe next time.

[MFA]

It makes no sense at all to bid like the actual north.

[HeartA]

Walddk, on Mar 7 2007, 02:03 AM, said:

This is all sheer nonsense in my view.

Completely agree.

[helene_t]

Unlike most others, I don't think North's bidding was completely insane. If partner is known to open light in first seat and favorable vuln, 2♥ is probably a good contract. His hope is either to be allowed to play 2♥, or to push OW into an unmakeable contract. If he had doubled 2NT, or 3NT after a t/o double by East, I would have sympathy for him.

But after a direct 3NT overcall, his double is too speculative. East would normaly have a running minor and a single heart stop. Looking at North's holding it's probably an almost-running minor suit and a double heart stop. Now it's time to realize that the 2♥-strategy failed, EW are probably in the right contract. No big deal, if 3NT is right, our teammates will bid it as well.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on Mar 8 2007, 05:23 AM, said:

Unlike most others, I don't think North's bidding was completely insane. If partner is known to open light in first seat and favorable vuln, 2♥ is probably a good contract. His hope is either to be allowed to play 2♥, or to push OW into an unmakeable contract. If he had doubled 2NT, or 3NT after a t/o double by East, I would have sympathy for him.

But after a direct 3NT overcall, his double is too speculative. East would normaly have a running minor and a single heart stop. Looking at North's holding it's probably an almost-running minor suit and a double heart stop. Now it's time to realize that the 2♥-strategy failed, EW are probably in the right contract. No big deal, if 3NT is right, our teammates will bid it as well.

Perhaps you have a point about his bidding, but what do you think of his after the hand explanation of how his partner was supposed to work it all out and pull the double to 4H?

I played once, exactly once, with a guy like that. His bidding and play might suck but when it came to conjuring up explanations of why the bad results were all my fault he was an absolute genius.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Mar 8 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

Perhaps you have a point about his bidding, but what do you think of his after the hand explanation of how his partner was supposed to work it all out and pull the double to 4H?

He took a gamble and it failed. Then it's time to say "sorry, partner" even if the gamle was reasonable. Which I doubt that it was, although it may depend on the style of the 3NT-bidder.

I don't see how South can be supposed to figure out that 3NT makes and that 4♥ is less of a disaster than 3NTx. Besides, if 3NT by agreement shows a solid minor, there's still the chance that West will run to 4♣.

But "it's always partner's fault" seems to be a law in bridge psychology.