[661_Pete]

I believe this convention is almost as old a Bridge itself, but I seldom see it mentioned on CCs - and certainly my (regular, and pretty good) partner and I hadn't discussed it before yesterday.

A shame. Consider this (I am West):

---

Yes I know my double will be criticised as a bit over-enthusiastic - but I had high hopes of getting one or two ruffs in - or North 'rescuing' into 6♦! And besides, that 5♥ looks very risky once you see the hands - though I wasn't to know that.

But what to lead? Do I play for partner with A♠ and get a ♠ ruff or two? Could partner be void in ♦ - after all I know someone has got to be short!

In the end I opted for 10♠ hoping for a ruff. Complete disaster! Declarer merely had to draw trumps, throw a ♣ on a ♦ and claim 11 tricks...

I couldn't stop myself saying to partner - "if only you'd doubled before I did - that would have prompted me to lead a ♦ (the 2 - asking for a ♣ return).

Was I right? And if so, perhaps we should discuss the Lightner double more seriously?

[Tramticket]

Normally a Lightner Double applies to a slam contract, asking for an unusual lead (usually based on a void). It is based on the theory that a double is not needed as a natural double since you will usually get an excellent result by simply defeating the slam.

It doesn't usually apply at the five-level, since you will often want to make a genuine penalty double at this level. I would keep things this simple, although some experts extend the principle to some very limited five-level situations where both defenders know that we are out-gunned. This certainly doesn't apply here - why shouldn't the 4♠ have some concealed strength. A double by East in this auction will be penalties showing defence against 5♥ and warning partner against competing to 5♠.

Lightner Doubles are great when they come up - but they are still a pretty rare tool and I would prioritise other discussions before Lightner Doubles (e.g. what does a double of 3NT show? - opportunities for lead directing doubles of 3NT are much more frequent).

[The_Badger]

Think about your defence, Pete. If partner can give you a ruff in ♠s, doesn't it allow you to cash the ♣A first? (I know this may also be a losing defence on a different distribution of cards.) The primarily object is to put the contract down, not to estimate before the opening lead how many tricks you think it will go down.

At least you're honest to say that your double of 5♥ was a bit over-enthusiastic

[661_Pete]

Yes - I was pretty annoyed with myself after that lead - but in mitigation I will say that on the whole it was a fairly good session overall for my partner and me: this was one of only two zeros (out of 24 boards) and we managed a creditable 57% (MPs) on the day.

Had I found the right lead it would have been a clean top (the only plus score for E-W) and bumped our result for the day up to 63% - but mustn't be greedy I suppose! And if I'd not doubled it would at least have been an average: most of the other tables were in 4♥ (undoubled) and all made 11 tricks: not one defence found that ♦ lead!

(*sigh*)

[msjennifer]

Sir ,I do not know your concept of preemption,Is there any difference if partner had bid 3S ? Something like a 3S guarantees the ACE and 4S bid is purely a high preempt denying any defensive trick.Also when opponents are in a GF auction( in this case) what does a 4D bid over opponents 2D suggest (if doubled then a runaway to 4S is available) ? Admittedly you had a guess but a CA lead should have been given a consideration before switching to S or continue with C after a look at the dummy and as per your signalling methods.Very difficult to find a fault with your unfortunate decision on the table.

[nige1]

.

661_Pete writes "I believe this convention is almost as old a Bridge itself, but I seldom see it mentioned on CCs - and certainly my (regular, and pretty good) partner and I hadn't discussed it before yesterday. A shame. Consider this (I am West): Yes I know my double will be criticised as a bit over-enthusiastic - but I had high hopes of getting one or two ruffs in - or North 'rescuing' into 6♦! And besides, that 5♥ looks very risky once you see the hands - though I wasn't to know that. But what to lead? Do I play for partner with A♠ and get a ♠ ruff or two? Could partner be void in ♦ - after all I know someone has got to be short! In the end I opted for 10♠ hoping for a ruff. Complete disaster! Declarer merely had to draw trumps, throw a ♣ on a ♦ and claim 11 tricks...I couldn't stop myself saying to partner - "if only you'd doubled before I did - that would have prompted me to lead a ♦ (the 2 - asking for a ♣ return). Was I right? And if so, perhaps we should discuss the Lightner double more seriously?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IMO The Lightner double convention is useful, not just against slams. Some experts agree that it simply asks for an unusual lead. But I feel that ordinary players benefit from more specific agreements e.g. I like the double to mean
1. Examine your hand, carefully, in the light of the auction.
2. Don't lead a trump.
3. Don't lead a suit that we've bid or doubled for the lead.
4. But if we've both bid suits, then lead your own suit.
5. Tend to avoid an unbid suit.
6. Consider leading dummy's first bid side-suit or failing that, any side-suit bid by opponents.
7. With a choice of suits, lead the suit that might not be immediately fatal to the defence.
8. With no other clue, lead a ♦ (but If that would not make sense then lead a ♣).
(Without the double you might have preferred a major) A double-diamond works wonders

For instance,
There was a long discussion on Bridge-winners, about the hypothetical meaning of your double of 7NT when partner is on lead,
Several world-class players said that it showed any cashing ace.
For me and many others, that seemed a daft and dangerous agreement for ordinary players..
To us, it seemed better that it should suggest a specific ace (not usually opponents' main suit)

---

[661_Pete]

Incidentally, the above comment about partner doubling a game as a warning not to sacrifice, is very apposite. The previous week (different partner) I had a different sort of disaster . This time it was I with the long spades: ♠AQTxxxx and little else, and after I had preemptively overcalled them my LHO bid a fairly confident 3NT which was passed round to me. What to do? I reasoned thus: LHO must surely have some sort of spade guard, Kxx at least, so partner will probably be short: without a side entry I'm not likely to be able to run the spades.

Can you blame me for calling 4♠? It wasn't even doubled.

And then imagine my dismay when partner tabled three spades: Jxx - and Ace in another suit! LHO did indeed have Kxx and RHO was void. I came through with -2, but we could have run the spades against 3NT for an eventual 3 or 4 down. I suppose, if partner had brought herself to double 3NT, I would have assumed penalties and left it alone (although I suppose the opponents might have found a suit to retreat into).

Such is life.....