[broze]

The Lightner double was first introduced to call for an unusual lead against slam and the idea is clearly theoretically sound, occasionally giving up the chance to collect a penalty that would have been larger on a normal lead in favour of defeating a slam when the normal lead would not work.

However I think it was Terrence Reese who once suggested that so many disasters had resulted from the convention that it might well have proved to be a net loss since its conception.

Bear that in mind when observing the following deal.

---

West chooses to make a Lightner double asking partner to lead clubs, dummy's first bid suit. It's a medium-sized Matchpoint field and 7NT is likely to be a top anyway on this...imaginative auction. The 2♣ is duly led.

Can you see what is about to happen?

[Lord Molyb]

west is about to discard, right?

[CSGibson]

sure, double squeeze around hearts, assuming the K of diamonds is onside.

For the line to work, you have to read the position, and the K of clubs has to be offside, but its by far the best odds.

[kenrexford]

The normal line would probably be to hook the diamond Queen, play the diamond Ace (checking for Kx onside and removing that card from Dummy), and then running the spades, playing for either a simple club hook or possibly some sort of squeeze in the remaining three suits.

With the club lead, that line is gone. So, instead you are forced to hop the club Ace and then run the spades, cash the heart Ace, and hope for the diamond Kx to be onside (which would have worked anyway) or for the diamond King onside but only East protecting hearts. If East started with the diamond King plus KQJ in hearts, or the diamond King plus any six hearts, the lead forces a line that works but that would have failed on the normal line.


I think that's what happens.




Or, maybe CSG's line is better...

[GreenMan]

On the general subject, Sartaj Hans over at Bridgewinners advocates not making Lightner doubles of 7suit contracts, on the theory that they too often push the opps out of a doomed contract into a better 7NT; he says his partnerships try for a ruff against suit grand slams even in the absence of a double.

Shortly after Hans posted an article on the topic, he was on Vugraph in the Lightner-double seat with a void against a suit grand slam. He did not double, partner did not lead his long suit for a ruff, and one of the VG commentators expressed amusement at the whole thing.

[mfa1010]

Why would you make a lightner double with a king against 7N? To ensure that declarer will not finesse the suit but try something else?

For the lead to matter, it has to remove an entry or kill a squeeze, kudos if that was visualized during the bidding, otherwise a lightner double is just plain stupidity, since it could only help declarer.

[mfa1010]

 GreenMan, on 2013-December-17, 11:24, said:

On the general subject, Sartaj Hans over at Bridgewinners advocates not making Lightner doubles of 7suit contracts, on the theory that they too often push the opps out of a doomed contract into a better 7NT; he says his partnerships try for a ruff against suit grand slams even in the absence of a double.

Shortly after Hans posted an article on the topic, he was on Vugraph in the Lightner-double seat with a void against a suit grand slam. He did not double, partner did not lead his long suit for a ruff, and one of the VG commentators expressed amusement at the whole thing.

Maybe Sartaj didn't play with Tony Nunn and forgot to tell his new partner, that he should always try go give a ruff against 7 of a suit, because there will be no lightner double coming.

[GreenMan]

 mfa1010, on 2013-December-17, 12:34, said:

Maybe Sartaj didn't play with Tony Nunn and forgot to tell his new partner, that he should always try go give a ruff against 7 of a suit, because there will be no lightner double coming.

I think he was playing with Peter Gill, but I don't trust my memory on that.

[mfa1010]

 GreenMan, on 2013-December-17, 12:36, said:

I think he was playing with Peter Gill, but I don't trust my memory on that.

I saw from the results from Phoenix that those two were partnering, so if the board is from there, it was very likely Peter Gill.

After Sartaj's entertaining article on BW I would not ever dare not leading my longest against a grand slam, if I were Sartaj's partner.

[GreenMan]

 mfa1010, on 2013-December-17, 14:29, said:

I saw from the results from Phoenix that those two were partnering, so if the board is from there, it was very likely Peter Gill.

After Sartaj's entertaining article on BW I would not ever dare not leading my longest against a grand slam, if I were Sartaj's partner.

It was before Phoenix, that big Australian teams event a month or so ago (GNOT?).

[GreenMan]

Anyway, back to the original subject, kenrexford's analysis looks right to me, but I'd like to hear more.

[sfi]

 GreenMan, on 2013-December-17, 14:43, said:

It was before Phoenix, that big Australian teams event a month or so ago (GNOT?).

It's likely to be from the Spring Nationals in Sydney. Sartaj wasn't at the GNOT, as far as I can tell.

[manudude03]

I'm going with CSGibson, East having KQ of hearts too.

[mycroft]

It was a psychic Lightner: Declarer went up Ace and tried to run the heart double squeeze. West takes the diamond K, and returns a club to the K for -2. 6NT is cold across the room, making +1 when declarer tries the club hook and squeeze from there.

[broze]

Chris G et al. have it with the double squeeze of the non-simultaneous variety. You are cold on the lead if the K♦ is onside. Cash your spades, East must guard D and abandon Hearts. Then cash QA♦ and West must keep that fatal K♣, also abandoning hearts. You then have the ♥A back to the long hearts.

The point being of course, that almost any other lead will set the contract because it breaks up the communication for the double squeeze. You have to cash the club Ace first for timing and the only way you can do that is if it's led.

It's not clear what East would have led without the double (he had KJ...♥) But to think the doubler thought he was attracting a safe lead!

So another Lightner disaster but a slightly more unusual one.