[kenrexford]

Every rare once-in-a-while, I see this auction (recurred tonight):

P-P-1♠-2♥
P-2♠-P-3♥
P-3♠-P-3NT
all pass.

Or, a variation of this.

The initial failure to double 2♠ might suggest that another lead is superior.

But, which minor?

Should a delayed double, of 3♠, clarify the minor of preference? If so, does anyone know the default here?

[mike777]

this auction seems silly if not impossible!

How can a passed hand cuebid and invite slam?? Are you playing Roth/Stone?

[whereagles]

If pard wants you to lead a minor, why not opening in that minor.. huh?

[kenrexford]

3♠ was intended, by the opps, as a "Western Cue," asking for a spade stopper.

Just to be clear about the auction. Two passes. Third seat opened 1♠ with five spades (KJxxx), four diamonds (AKxx), and the heart Queen.

2♥ overcall, pass by Responder.

Advancer cuebid 2♠, and Opener passed.

Overcaller bid 3♥, showing a minimum.

Responder passed.

Advancer bid 3♠ as a Western Cue. He held AKQJxxx in clubs, xx in hearts, a stiff diamond, and xxx in clubs.

Opener passed again, Overcaller accepted (AQ of spades), and all pass.

The spade lead allowed -660. The diamond lead would yield five immediate tricks (on opening lead, held QJxxx in diamonds), +100.

So, back to the original Q. Does a double of 3♠ suggest diamonds or clubs as a lead preference?

[whereagles]

It doesn't.

The lack of spade double 1st round just shows something about spades (weakish or strongish, according to agreement). On 2nd round, the lack of double means nothing unless you have agreed on a meaning for it, which you probably didn't because this auction happens once every 100 000 hands. The double of 3NT would strongly suggest a lead outside spades, but I think you have no means of saying you prefer one minor to the other (modulo unusual agreements).

In the actual hand, I wouldn't double 3NT because it's not guaranteed the diamonds run. In fact, the best policy is to discourage a spade lead and maybe pard will find the good lead looking at his hand.

By the way, with, say,

xxxxx
Qxx
AKQx
x

you might want to try a 1♦ opener in 3rd seat, instead of 1♠.

[awm]

Most people I've discussed it with prefer to play anti-lead-directional doubles of cuebids of suits they bid. So in this auction a double of 2♠ would say "don't lead a spade" whereas a pass indicates a reasonable spade suit. The reasoning here is that most of the time you want partner to lead the suit you opened, and every time you double it gives the opponents an extra bid to help them find the right spot. So you want the doubles to be relatively rare rather than semi-automatic, which the anti-lead-directional double accomplishes.

Anyways, assuming that pass of 2♠ was "don't lead a spade" it seems like opener has a rare opportunity to express a minor suit preference over 3♠. It's silly to have some special agreement about such an unusual auction, but a reasonable default agreement might be that "lower bid shows lower suit." The lowest bid is pass (over pass, partner can pass, double, or make any call; whereas over double partner has one fewer option available since he cannot double also). So pass would ask for a club lead and double for a diamond lead.

[kenrexford]

awm, on Sep 8 2006, 12:48 PM, said:

It's silly to have some special agreement about such an unusual auction...

Yeah, that's probably true. But, perhaps the default should be or parallel or be consistent with 1NT-P-3NT-X?

I also like the "don't lead a spade" double. This just changes the auction to a double of 2♠, then a decision over 3♠.

[cherdano]

awm, on Sep 8 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

Anyways, assuming that pass of 2♠ was "don't lead a spade" it seems like opener has a rare opportunity to express a minor suit preference over 3♠. It's silly to have some special agreement about such an unusual auction, but a reasonable default agreement might be that "lower bid shows lower suit." The lowest bid is pass (over pass, partner can pass, double, or make any call; whereas over double partner has one fewer option available since he cannot double also). So pass would ask for a club lead and double for a diamond lead.

Surely partner will work this out at the table

Btw, I do play anti-lead-directional doubles, but I wouldn't expect them to apply here against 2S. Doubling 2S would show desire to compete to 3S for me (opposite ♠Hx or a 3-card holding in a hand too weak for a direct 2S).

Arend

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Sep 8 2006, 04:02 PM, said:

awm, on Sep 8 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

Anyways, assuming that pass of 2♠ was "don't lead a spade" it seems like opener has a rare opportunity to express a minor suit preference over 3♠. It's silly to have some special agreement about such an unusual auction, but a reasonable default agreement might be that "lower bid shows lower suit." The lowest bid is pass (over pass, partner can pass, double, or make any call; whereas over double partner has one fewer option available since he cannot double also). So pass would ask for a club lead and double for a diamond lead.

Surely partner will work this out at the table

This is identical to doubles of splinter bids which are used to suggest leading the highest suit, while pass is neutral or suggest leading the lower suit. (The other use of double of spllnter bid is along the lilne of this might be our hand)....

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Sep 8 2006, 11:12 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 8 2006, 04:02 PM, said:

awm, on Sep 8 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

Anyways, assuming that pass of 2♠ was "don't lead a spade" it seems like opener has a rare opportunity to express a minor suit preference over 3♠. It's silly to have some special agreement about such an unusual auction, but a reasonable default agreement might be that "lower bid shows lower suit." The lowest bid is pass (over pass, partner can pass, double, or make any call; whereas over double partner has one fewer option available since he cannot double also). So pass would ask for a club lead and double for a diamond lead.

Surely partner will work this out at the table

This is identical to doubles of splinter bids which are used to suggest leading the highest suit, while pass is neutral or suggest leading the lower suit. (The other use of double of spllnter bid is along the lilne of this might be our hand)....

But obviously it is superior to play that double suggest leading the lower suit!

(The reason being that you can overcall the higher-ranking suit more easily.)

[mikeh]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

IMHO double should be penalty: lead a ♠ and they go down.

Trying to cater to unusual situations has to be wrong, on a frequency basis. Consider the example hand: the reason that double for ♦ works is that partner holds QJxxx!!!! How does opener know this?

Plus, the odds are that we will get very few of these situations: the opps' auction here was, to be charitable, weird... for all advancer knew, he was propelling his side to 3N down off the top rather than a cold 6♣... overcaller with, for example, Ax AKQxxx xx 10xx.

On related topics: I like the undouble, but the only time it could have been employed here was over 3♠. A double of 2♠ would be takeout of ♥: bear in mind that the most common usage for the 2♠ cue is to show a maximum passed hand raise to 3♥... not as western cue based a never-to-be bid solid suit.

I think that there is far more likely to be a need and a reason to maximize the penalty than there is going to be a hand on which opener has 5 tricks if and only if a specific, unbiddable side suit can be led... and opener, on this kind of auction, can at least do the undouble of 3♠ and get a 50% chance of partner getting it right.

[jikl]

On a semi-related topic, what do people play on this auction:

1NT P 3NT X

Sean

[whereagles]

1N pass 3N dbl:

Two mainstreadm interpretations, pick one to agree with pard:

"lead a spade"
"lead your shortest suit, I got AKQ 5th somewhere"

[ewj]

jikl, on Sep 8 2006, 08:32 PM, said:

On a semi-related topic, what do people play on this auction:

1NT P 3NT X

Sean

"Lead your weakest major partner"

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Sep 8 2006, 04:51 AM, said:

Every rare once-in-a-while, I see this auction (recurred tonight):

P-P-1♠-2♥
P-2♠-P-3♥
P-3♠-P-3NT
all pass.

Or, a variation of this.

The initial failure to double 2♠ might suggest that another lead is superior.

But, which minor?

Should a delayed double, of 3♠, clarify the minor of preference? If so, does anyone know the default here?

The concept of

"when I am known not to want a particular suit led, a lead-directing double asks for something special elsewhere"

has value.

However, I don't think it applies on this auction, as a double of 2S usually would show interest in competing in spades, so opener could still have KQJ10x and want the suit led.