[kereru67]

Even though it only comes up about once a year and there's a good chance partner won't recognize it and will make a "normal" lead and give them a doubled slam.... the Lightner double is still part of standard bidding.

At rubber bridge the convention makes perfect sense. Mathematically there's no sense in using a double of a slam in its natural sense, you're risking 500 or so points for the gain of 50, so only double if you have a void and want to direct your p to lead that suit, or if you are 100% sure of beating the contract (e.g. KQJ of trumps).

However pairs scoring is different. 6♥x= may not be that much worse than 6♥=, whereas 6♥x-1 may be significantly better than 6♥-1. In other words using a double of a slam in its natural sense may be more appropriate at pairs scoring.

What is the current thinking on this?

[DavidKok]

I have no idea what most people think, but in my experience 6♥-1 is already a very good score. People are awful at slam bidding, so when the opponents bid one against you you are likely headed for 80%+ if they go off or 20%- if they make it. A double would increase the stakes to near 100% versus near 0%, but I'm not sure the odds on that are in your favour. After all, the opponents did just willingly bid a slam. I can see a regular penalty double having more utility at pairs compared to rubber/IMPs/teams, but I'm not at all convinced it is good enough to ditch Lightner.

[kereru67]

ok so it's still standard, it's just that the mathematics at pairs is completely different and most people are taught a bidding system more appropriate to rubber bridge.

[DavidKok]

That is my guess, yes.

[bluenikki]

kereru67, on 2022-December-10, 03:11, said:

Even though it only comes up about once a year and there's a good chance partner won't recognize it and will make a "normal" lead and give them a doubled slam.... the Lightner double is still part of standard bidding.

At rubber bridge the convention makes perfect sense. Mathematically there's no sense in using a double of a slam in its natural sense, you're risking 500 or so points for the gain of 50, so only double if you have a void and want to direct your p to lead that suit, or if you are 100% sure of beating the contract (e.g. KQJ of trumps).

However pairs scoring is different. 6♥x= may not be that much worse than 6♥=, whereas 6♥x-1 may be significantly better than 6♥-1. In other words using a double of a slam in its natural sense may be more appropriate at pairs scoring.

What is the current thinking on this?

Not really responsive, but 60 years ago, after his discussion of Lightner, Gore added "(If you think you will set it two tricks, go ahead and double, no matter what I or anyone else says.)"

[mikeh]

You’re thinking about it incorrectly.

There are two circumstances in which one doubles a voluntarily bid slam. One, and the commonest, is that you have it beaten in your own hand: maybe you’re on lead with an ace you know is cashing and a sure trump trick (and reason to think they can’t successfully run to, say, 6N).

This type of ‘I’ve got them’ double can be made whether you’re on lead or partner is.

The Lightner double can only be made by the non-leader, and it says….I expect to beat them with a specific lead, usually the first suit bid naturally by dummy. I once held the king of dummy’s first bid suit, in which dummy had later cuebid, and a side ace and the opps were in 6N on a hand where, absent the right lead, they’d have 12 winners once my ace was knocked out. Perhaps more commonly, the double suggests a void either in dummy’s first bid suit ir, if there wasn’t one, in opening leader’s likely longest suit.

It’s not either or. When partner is on lead, you can still make the ‘I’ve got them beat’ double so long as having partner read it as Lightner doesn’t matter. I vaguely recall a hand years ago where I didn’t double out of fear that leading dummy’s suit might be fatal, but those are extremely rare. Most of the time, when you have the sure penalty double, you don’t care what partner leads. So you double, partner assumes it calls for a lead but it doesn’t matter.

And, yes, it’s standard. The mathematics argument doesn’t really apply. When it’s pure penalty then so long as they can’t run, its 100% to maximize one’s score. When it’s Lightner, it’s a question of beating it with the specified lead or going minus, so it’s almost always right to double.

[DavidKok]

Everything mikeh said is true but I think there is a more subtle point to keep in mind. Sure, if you have got their slam beaten on any lead, double away. This applies regardless of your meaning or double. But there is a meaningful difference between a double by partner of the opening leader that asks for an unusual lead and a double that does not ask for an unusual lead. The former is Lightner by agreement, even if you also double with the stone cold two trick hands. I think the situation where you are dependent on partner not making a crazy lead to beat their slam is more common than you said, and in those situations it might be percentage to make an 'I think we have them beat'-double but not a 'please find your unusual lead'-double. At IMPs, butler or teams the payout is so heavily slanted that it doesn't make sense to aim for +100 over +50, but at matchpoints I think the former agreement (double does not request an unusual lead) is not crazy, though probably still not great either. The fact that you might have the slam beat regardless of the lead doesn't factor into this - that hand simply doubles, regardless of meaning.

[bluenikki]

kereru67, on 2022-December-10, 03:11, said:

Even though it only comes up about once a year and there's a good chance partner won't recognize it and will make a "normal" lead and give them a doubled slam.... the Lightner double is still part of standard bidding.

At rubber bridge the convention makes perfect sense. Mathematically there's no sense in using a double of a slam in its natural sense, you're risking 500 or so points for the gain of 50, so only double if you have a void and want to direct your p to lead that suit, or if you are 100% sure of beating the contract (e.g. KQJ of trumps).

However pairs scoring is different. 6♥x= may not be that much worse than 6♥=, whereas 6♥x-1 may be significantly better than 6♥-1. In other words using a double of a slam in its natural sense may be more appropriate at pairs scoring.

What is the current thinking on this?

It is worth noting that despite the talk of "unusual lead," Lightner himself insisted that the double's main message was DO NOT LEAD MY SUIT. As you can see, this is a life-saver and everyone must play it.

(The double of 3NT, though, says DO lead my suit. Maybe it shouldn't but it does. Look it up in any book.)

[mikestar13]

DavidKok, on 2022-December-10, 03:43, said:

I have no idea what most people think, but in my experience 6♥-1 is already a very good score. People are awful at slam bidding, so when the opponents bid one against you you are likely headed for 80%+ if they go off or 20%- if they make it. A double would increase the stakes to near 100% versus near 0%, but I'm not sure the odds on that are in your favour. After all, the opponents did just willingly bid a slam. I can see a regular penalty double having more utility at pairs compared to rubber/IMPs/teams, but I'm not at all convinced it is good enough to ditch Lightner.

I agree, penalty doubles of slams in matchpoints have better odds than in rubber or imps, but not good enough (excluding slams bid as an obvious sacrifice or a mortal lock like KQJ of trumps).

[kereru67]

Based on my own experience playing goulash on BBO, it's usually right to lead anything but your partnership's suit in a wild auction between 2 superfits. Even without the double I'd be inclined to lead a long side suit and try to find partner's void. Failing that I'll just lead something safe like J10xx

[mikeh]

mikestar13, on 2022-December-10, 12:59, said:

I agree, penalty doubles of slams in matchpoints have better odds than in rubber or imps, but not good enough (excluding slams bid as an obvious sacrifice or a mortal lock like KQJ of trumps).

I don’t understand. Since when is it ever right to make a penalty double of a voluntarily bid game or slam unless one is confident of a set, including being confident that the double won’t allow declarer to gain a trick or more in the play (as an example, giving away a bad trump break)?

A penalty double of a voluntarily (ie not a sacrifice and not a highly competitive guess) should be based not on how many high card points our side has but on how many tricks we expect to take.

Utilizing this philosophy, we should be making penalty doubles of voluntarily bid contracts with the same frequency at imps or matchpoints and of all contracts, game, slam or part scores.

It’s not a question of turning +100 into +200 with a chance that we’re turning -1430 into -1660 and estimating the odds

If there’s any non-trivial chance of 1660, we don’t double.

Meanwhile, last time I checked +200 beats +100 at all forms of scoring so if we have a beat coming, double. If we don’t, pass

+100 against a slam that we didn’t double never scores badly.

Now, I admit that I probably make fewer non-forced (ie not in a forcing pass scenario where I don’t have the hand to keep bidding) penalty doubles than most. But, otoh, my partners NEVER worry about pulling my doubles out of fright.

So for me, I just don’t understand why anyone thinks that one has to choose between playing Lightner or ‘penalty’.

When I double a non-sacrifice slam contract, I expect partner will usually take it as lead-directing, and either I want that lead or I know that it doesn’t matter.

[blackshoe]

bluenikki, on 2022-December-10, 06:53, said:

Not really responsive, but 60 years ago, after his discussion of Lightner, Gore added "(If you think you will set it two tricks, go ahead and double, no matter what I or anyone else says.)"

Was that before or after he invented the Internet? :-)

[kereru67]

blackshoe, on 2022-December-10, 17:30, said:

Was that before or after he invented the Internet? :-)

Totally off topic of course... but he didn't claim to "invent" the internet, just to "create" it. He did play a major part in the legislative framework that made the internet a part of everyday life.