[wclucas42]

The regular partner of a guy from the local club is on sabbatical, so it appears as if I stumbled into a temporary partnership. As we're both rather busy we have been trying to align our agreements at the table, which has proven to be interesting. Recently after defending a 3NT contract, he asked: "If I had doubled would you have known what to lead?" I forget the exact auction and which seat opened, but it was in the vein (1♣) - P - (1♦) - P - (2NT*) - P - (3NT) - AP *8-19 balanced.

I admitted I had no idea the double would have been a lead director and would have just assumed it was for penalty. "The math isn't there. It's just asking for an unusual lead, a lead through dummy in this case." was his response. I get the math argument, but I see plenty of 3NTXs contract on BBO and online through my phone.

So I googled... There were a few hits 2 by a single author:

http://robinsbridge....t-for-lead.html
http://bridgewinners...doubles-of-3nt/

I emailed the links, and it's not how he is used to playing, which is fine... For lack of anything better we settled on "Lead dummy's bid or implied suit or shorter major if N/A" which feels a little incomplete.

So first how common is it to use Double of 3NT contracts as lead director and if you do play that way how do you determine the "unusual" lead?

Thanks,Bill

[helene_t]

If neither of you have bid anything it is quite logical that it asks for a lead in dummy's suit, especially if dummy could have only four (or less) cards in that suit and doubler had a chance to bid something at a low level but didn't do so.

But in other situations it is less clear and is probably a question of agreement.