[madongjun]

crazy bid.
what's your lead,why?

---

[hrothgar]

madongjun, on 2013-May-19, 17:58, said:

crazy bid.
what's your lead,why?

---

I lead a passive trump

1. I don't think that the double is Lighter, therefore I'm not underleading my Diamond King
2. RHO should have solid trump, so this shouldn't finesse partner
3. The lead kills a potential ruff in dummy and hopefully end plays RHO

[bigbenvic]

Since partner doubled I probably wont lead a heart as that would be 'expected' by declarer. Then again he could be playing the old double/triple bluff game!

If I'm trying to hit his void I'd lead a ♦ or a ♣. If I just think south is a nutjob I'd lead a ♥. If I want to be totally passive I'd lead a ♠.

Of those options I think I like a ♣ the best, without being there or knowing any history of my partner or opponents I think that given South has either a stiff Ace of ♥ or a void tilts me slightly to find partners void as South probably has a plan (yes I'm giving them undue credit!)

If south is 2 suited ♦ is unlikely to be his second solid suit as I have KJ so it could be ♣. In which case I can see a layout where partner is club void and this is the only lead to take it off, unlikely but possible.

So having voted clubs I bet that it's wrong!

[MrAce]

To me this double is lightner. If this is not lightner dbl we may as well not play it at all.

I will not lead ♥ or a ♠. I will lead ♦ because if pd is ruffing something this is more likely to be the suit he is void. I do not expect 7♠ bidder to have made that bid with AQ ♦ anyway.

I am well aware that pd may have doubled with ♣ A or void as well. But lightner double still increases the accuracy of correct lead by A LOT.

[cherdano]

The diamond lead for a ruff is only necessary if diamonds are 5=7=0=1 around the table. That seems rather unlikely! No, I don't expect declarer can pitch his losing diamonds in either hand.

Whereas with a club lead we are playing for clubs to be 3=5=0=6 around the table, or 3=5=0=5, that seems a lot more plausible.

It's also plausible that partner has ♠Qxx, and made a Lightner double to get us to lead anything but a trump!

[PhilKing]

A club is 100% clearcut. But only because I've seen it all before.

Declarer has spades and clubs.

[gszes]

with xx xxx xxxxx xxx we would lead a diamond since that appears
to be the best shot by far to hit p void if they have any. We avoid that
lead here becasue if dia is 7s bidder 2nd suit it is just extremely
unlikely they can possibly get rid of their dia losers unless maybe
we lead one. Since a heart and a spade are totally wrong the process
of elimination is a club. While a club is hardly a likely candidate for a
ruff from p it appears to be the best shot given the bidding and our cards.

I would not bet the morgage on it so 100% is a bit strong (courtesy PhilKing)
but I agree that a club is the card we should pull from our hand this time.

[Winstonm]

I think this double has to be Lightner and I think the arguments above for a club are good ones.

[PhilKing]

gszes, on 2013-May-20, 07:36, said:

I would not bet the morgage on it so 100% is a bit strong (courtesy PhilKing)
but I agree that a club is the card we should pull from our hand this time.

Well it's been right the four times I have seen this situation in 25 years, so I am just hoping for the run to continue.

Eventually, diamonds will be 5701 round the table, but not until the year 5701, I hope.

[nige1]

madongjun, on 2013-May-19, 17:58, said:

what's your lead,why?

crazy bid.

---

IMO ♣2 = 10, ♦J = 4, ♠5 = 2, ♥2 = 1. IMO Cherdano and Picky are right again

[madongjun]

I Think,If you didn't bid double,Your partner mabye lead Club by anti-Lightner.

[MrAce]

Arend convinced me that ♣ lead is better.

[PhilKing]

madongjun, on 2013-May-20, 22:59, said:

I Think,If you didn't bid double,Your partner mabye lead Club by anti-Lightner.

My experience suggests that without the double, it is one of the rare times it is correct to lead a trump versus a grand. It's all in my unfinished work "The complete book of opning leads versus seven-level overcalls and openings". Declarer is gambling with ♠AKQJTxx♥-♦-♣AKJxxx, and dummy has two black singletons.

I described a hand recently where John Hobson opened 7♥ on ♠-♥AKQJxx♦AKJxxxx♣- in cases dummy had two singletons and they failed to lead a trump. But this time lefty failed to double with T9xxxxx trumps and his partner sacrificed in 7♠ .

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-20, 14:37, said:

Well it's been right the four times I have seen this situation in 25 years

I'm amazed that you've seen this type of problem as many times as that, assuming you mean in real life rather than on the back of a scorecard. How many 7-level openings or overcalls without a Lightner Double have you seen?

[PhilKing]

3 out of 4 back of envelope. The one I was at table was small slam but can't remember exact details (over 20 years ago) except wrong lead was made. Now if you are arguing that back of envelop could corrupt the sample, you may be right, but it's clear-cut enough not to be an issue.

I have looked through my top-play database (now almost fully searchable) for counter-examples without success, but it only has about 11k hands in it so far (target at least 30k).

[madongjun]

Quote

My experience suggests that without the double, it is one of the rare times it is correct to lead a trump versus a grand

You are right.

PhilKing, on 2013-May-21, 05:23, said:

"The complete book of opning leads versus seven-level overcalls and openings".

I am expecting.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-21, 06:03, said:

Now if you are arguing that back of envelop could corrupt the sample, you may be right, but it's clear-cut enough not to be an issue.

No, I was just curious. I've also seen it several times before, but the hand was the same every time. The version I saw had a tempting AK.

[madongjun]

Four hand:

---