June 11, 2006 1:07 AM
D.S.I.P. - The Redouble
Do not forget that the redouble negates D.S.I.P. theory. It says we own the auction so start doubling for penalty. This is a direct redouble or a redouble after they balance. Also D.S.I.P. theory is modified when they balance. We play the over/under rule. If the doubler is behind the suit , it is penalty. If the doubler is in front of the suit , it means D.S.I.P. The redouble of course changes that as a double in front or behind the suit is penalty.
I have been going over old Bridge Worlds on write ups by Edgar Kaplan of Spingolds , Vanderbilts and Bermuda bowls. I have been paying attention to Rodwell/Meckstroth who because of their forcing club , open anything regardless of quick tricks. I have noticed that in competitive auctions they give each other maximum leeway and rarely double the opponents for penalty. This is because they do not trust each other’s openers.
Here is an auction where Rodwell opens 1♠ ( 2Nd seat equal nv ) on QJxxx Kxxx Axx K and Meckstroth bids 2♠ on xxx QJ KJ10x QJxx . This goes around to the balancer who doubles. Meckstroth does not even redouble ! The opponents bid 3♣ and around to Meckstroth and he puts the green card on the table. The opponents go down 3 for +150 and they can make 3♠ for a nothing board right ? Wrong , their partners were doubled in 3♣ at the other table and went for –500 so lose 12 IMPS.
This “style” of opening bids is one adopted by Ray Grace , Lee Barton , Steve Willard , Osama & others. What it does is put extreme pressure on the partnership because the opening bid does not mean what it has said since Bridge was invented. This is why I am saying that your opening bids defines your Bridge style. I call it “terrorism” because your partner has no idea what your hand is after you opened. Just watch the contortions that Alex Fowlie goes threw to interpret a Willard “opener” or Ray Graces partner etc. This erodes partnership trust & confidence and has an adverse effect on partnership decision making. This is very obvious.
Playing D.S.I.P. theory , you must xx to turn it off when opponents balance. If you pass and then double , partner will interpret the double as D.S.I.P. as you are in front of the suit and you failed to XX. You would not double the only spot you can beat anyway.
To say I am against this opening bid “style” is the biggest understatement of a lifetime. Do you really want these people as team mates ? I certainly do not. You hold AKQ109x xx Jx Jxx and 3 players whose combined Bridge experience was 100 years also held the same hand. All 3 of them came up with a different bid. In fact , Pitbull Pat in the CWTC finals came up with a 4th bid with a similar hand. Nv vrs vul she knows that these hand types are very weak defensively so she opened 4♠ !! She got doubled and went for 300 and Kiz made a vul 6♦ at the other table ! I opened 3♠ as I thought the strength of my spades equated to a 7 card suit ( equivalent to KQJ10xxx ) . Vince Nowlan opened this hand 2♠ and my partner BJ Trelford agrees that that was the correct bid. A 3rd person opened this hand 1♠ despite the lack of defensive tricks. A singleton spade wipes out your entire hand for defensive purposes and the opponents will undoubtedly make their doubled contract. Partner is put in a bad position because she has no idea that you “opened” a hand with no cards outside your suit and such an extreme lack of defense. Partner will not get a “picture” of your hand and pulling penalty doubles vul vrs not at the 4 level could be expensive.
You can get away with such “openers” if you tell partner she is not allowed to make a penalty double or make a competitive decision or bid a game or slam visualizing or based on the controls you are advertising by opening a bid at the one level. Quite a price to pay though and some people label you as a Bridge terrorist . Others say you just lack the discipline to describe your opening bids properly to partner. Still others say you do not know enough to realize what constitutes an opening bid.