[the saint]

You hold:

xxxx
x
109xxxx
xx

Playing a county league match in England against moderate oppositon. RHO opens 1NT(12-14), you pass, LHO bids 6NT and partner doubles which ends the auction. You haven't specifically agreed anything here about the meaning of the double.

1) What do you lead
a) If there where no double
b) Now there has been one

2) Sensible thoughts for agreements in this position.

There's 28 or so IMPs on this one!

[whereagles]

Obviously, partner has AK somewhere and is telling you to make an educated guess. Such a holding usually happens in our shortest suit, so a heart lead seems called for (conviction reinforced by failure of opps looking for a major suit fit). In absence of dbl, I would probably lead a spade or diamond.

[chasetb]

whereagles, on 2015-January-05, 14:53, said:

Obviously, partner has AK somewhere and is telling you to make an educated guess. Such a holding usually happens in our shortest suit, so a heart lead seems called for (conviction reinforced by failure of opps looking for a major suit fit). In absence of dbl, I would probably lead a spade or diamond.

Pretty much this. I would lead a ♠ if there was no X.

[the saint]

These were my thoughts - I just wanted to see what the consensus was out there in the bridge universe. I was the doubler.

I held:
J10x
AQ109xxx
x
Jx

I doubled gambling that the heart king was more likely underneath the AQ (given the 12-14NT) and that it would alert partner that something was up. He tanked and led...

A spade... -1880.

A heart would have defeated the contract. He mumbled something about double asking for a spade lead. I was just wondering how common an agreement that was.

[PhilKing]

If we have two winners in a major (or a probable two tricks as here), partner is basically known to be broke, so how can he guess right unless we have a firm agreement?

Here, the "lead the shorter major" agreement works well, but it falls down in many other situations where partner has similar holdings. I prefer the certainty of the "lead a spade" agreement, for this generic situation. The corollary, is that when partner does not double and I am broke, I will tend to fish out a heart lead.

[biggerclub]

Lead a Spade is pretty common in my California circles.

[MickyB]

If we figure that partner is more likely to have the AK of our short suit, we should also figure that the opponents are more likely to have length in our short suit, and that if they are missing AK of hearts, they may not have twelve fast tricks outside of hearts.

[whereagles]

the saint, on 2015-January-05, 15:50, said:

He mumbled something about double asking for a spade lead. I was just wondering how common an agreement that was.

That's common for 3NT, not 6NT

[Mbodell]

whereagles, on 2015-January-05, 18:20, said:

That's common for 3NT, not 6NT

Funny, I'd imagine it exactly the other way around. A X of 3nt with no suit information implies more lead the short major to set up partner's long suit. A X of 6nt is about getting 2 tricks and hitting partner's KQ or something before the A is driven out or the like.

With no X I'm leading a diamond. With the X I'm leading a spade. Absent explicit agreements about the X otherwise.

[whereagles]

Mbodell, on 2015-January-06, 03:47, said:

Funny, I'd imagine it exactly the other way around.

Well I learned it vs 3NT. Not an agreement I particularly like, but I've heard of it. (Prefer dbl = "guess my AKQxx+ suit" vs 3NT.)

[the saint]

MickyB, on 2015-January-05, 17:59, said:

If we figure that partner is more likely to have the AK of our short suit, we should also figure that the opponents are more likely to have length in our short suit, and that if they are missing AK of hearts, they may not have twelve fast tricks outside of hearts.

Although we have TWO short suits here. So possible they could have twelve tricks outside! Yes, I know I gave you this problem previously!

[Jinksy]

Since reading Bird and Anthias, I've wondered if X of 3N (given no suits bid) should be 'lead my minor', on the grounds that when you've got a running major, P should be able to find it on his own.

[nige1]

the saint, on 2015-January-05, 14:47, said:

You hold: ♠ x x x x ♥ x ♦ 10 9 x x x x ♣ x x
Playing a county league match in England against moderate oppositon. RHO opens 1NT(12-14), you pass, LHO bids 6NT and partner doubles which ends the auction. You haven't specifically agreed anything here about the meaning of the double.
1) What do you lead
a) If there where no double
b) Now there has been one
2) Sensible thoughts for agreements in this position.
There's 28 or so IMPs on this one!

IMO

• With no agreement, without a double: ♦ = 10, ♠ = 6 ♣ = 5, ♥ = 4.
• With no agreement, after partner doubles: ♠ = 10, ♣ = 9, ♥ = 8. ♦ = 7. Partner's double might be based on an AK; or on a KQ with an outside ace. Partner's high cards are more likely to be in his long suits. Hence he is unlikely to want a ♦ lead. If you lead a short suit (here ♥ or ♣) and you guess right that's fine but if you guess wrong, it's likely to be fatal. If you lead a medium suit (here ♠) and you guess wrong, then that may not be fatal because opponents may have so many cards in partner's suit that declarer may not be able to avoid broaching the suit himself.
• A double diamond works wonders is the convention that I used to play. Against uninformatively bid notrump contracts, with no clear indication, most players lead a major on the grounds that opponents are more likely to explore for major contracts than for minor contracts. Hence a minor is a less usual lead. Thus, it makes sense to double for a minor lead -- say ♦.
• When your heart's stopped, pass away. Philking's convention is also sensible. Double for a ♠ lead. So when choosing between the majors, tend to lead a ♥ if partner doesn't double.
• Any agreement is likely to be better than none

[the hog]

I would have led a S. In both cases.