Tuesday,
January 23, 2007 9:58 AM
Hand Evaluation - Doubles ( Anti-Terrorism )
PITBULLS:
D.S.I.P.
competitive double theory was developed in part due to my dislike of “modern bidding”
competing for partials & non pening bids. The mainstay of D.S.I.P. Theory
is that you double asking
permission to bid so as to not
rescue terrorists from their meeting with Allah. A double asking
permission to compete means you do not “get in the way” of partner’s penalty
double or conversion. The double in Bridge allows the partnership the greatest
option of “doing something intelligent” . There is a competing basic that the person with
shortness in their suit should initiate competitive action. We have
just extended that principle to competitive doubles. D.S.I.P. theory is also
based on recognizing the difference between defensive
hands ( quick tricks ) as opposed to offensive hands ( distribution & soft values ) . This same D.S.I.P. theory
ideas should apply to combating
terrorism when they open a weak
two or other pre-empt. When they open a weak two ,
forcing yourself to have a “shape” T/O dbl in the pass out seat is a losing strategy. Use equal
level conversion as an excuse & initiate the first shot with a double when you have defense. This action leaves the penalty options open & you can still
scramble to your best spot if they dodge the
bullet.
Terrorists
get re-enforced time & time again because you
let them ! When they intrude into your auction
, forcing pass theory was designed so that they are not rescued. You pass around to partner if
you have a defensive hand. Your first thought
should be to punish them if you do not have a fit yourself or vulnerability
conditions warrant it. Simple
stuff. Combating terrorism in competition though needs some structure like D.S.I.P. theory.
Modern bidders “over compete for partials” in IMPS thinking they are playing matchpoints. They think they are invincible overcalling
with their bad suits vul vrs
not or equal vul because you let them get away with
it. Bridge is a game of probabilities
based on the odds . Overcalls with bad suits should not work because there is twice the chance that the opponents fill in your suit rather than partner. Going against the odds with your competing
style means you need the opponents to rescue you time
after time . The Bergen doctrine is based on this
“rescuing” , in my opinion.
In todays “bidders game” where everyone wants to win the partial , you will get beat in the partial swings unless you
have a mechanism in place to give you maximum opportunity to catch them
speeding. A D.S.I.P. double is in itself
a competitive tool allowing you to compete more instead of selling out when you
hold defense. There is also a 2nd primary reason for a D.S.I.P.
double & that is to combat ”modern bidders” over competing for
partials with bad suits. They luck out when
partner can cover their losses in their bad overcall suit. This is only one
chance in 3 through as there is LHO & RHO to contend with not just partner. If LHO has their suit we wait for partners
D.S.I.P. double but if it does not come , we just take
our plus. With values in their suit ( duplication ) ,
we cannot make anything our way. If you do not have their suit , you double with defense instead of bidding so partner
( RHO to them ) can convert with their suit. In theory , the
terrorist only will win in one scenario which is when they luck out & find
a good dummy. In that case , partner cannot convert so you bid a partial your way anyway. All 3
competitive scenarios for partials covered !
Here is a hand that shows forcing pass theory
nicely against the Lamberts. We are vul , they are not , it goes two passes to Mrs. Lambert in 3rd seat who opens a weak 2♠.
I have ♠AKx ♥KQ1098 ♦Q10xx ♣10 , a hand most people
would overcall 3♥. However , bidding rescues known terrorists & I do have a defensive hand with
another suit so I make an off colour double going in.
A pre-empt in 3rd seat & a passed hand to my left give me some options to walk on the
wild side. Doubling initially leaves some options
open so If partner bids clubs , I can equal level convert to show the red suits.
Osama has ♠QJ ♥xxxx ♦KJxxx ♣Jx , you are not keeping
him out of the auction so he bids 3♦. My partner has a
very good defensive hand
( balanced with controls ) .
♠1098 ♥AJx ♦Ax ♣Q9876 so since I promise
diamonds he doubles to
show we have the balance of power.
This gets converted by me so around to Osama who runs to the “safety” of 3♠ . Good plan ? Not really as
Mrs Osama opened a weak 2♠ on ♠7xxxx ! My partner makes a forcing pass as the
first penalty double says we now own
the auction so I
double.
When
the smoke clears they are down 5 or 4
depending on the diamond guess. Double dummy defense ,
they are held to 3 tricks for +1400 !
+1100 or +800 though more than compensates for your game if there is
one. This is how the auction should have gone. However, in the crunch time my partner rescued them with a Q bid instead of a forcing pass. I bid 3NT & went down
one as I misplayed the spade suit thinking that the weak two was not five to
the 7 spot. The Q bid to show a strong hand when you do not
have a fit is the worst possible
bid in Bridge . Q bids should imply a fit your way. When
you have power
& no established fit , the opponents playing the hand doubled
should be a very viable option. Forcing pass theory works very nice in combating terrorism.
The pass does the job nicely to allow
partner to have her say in the partnership decision.
The
reason why “modern bidding” works , is the opponents rescue them time after time. Weak fields
& club games breeds Bridge terrorism.
The opponents have this irrational
fear that if they pass
with their good hand , this will end the auction. Bridge is a partnership game so when the ball is passed , partner should not fumble it. When the national security advisor has a
threat level of orange or higher , this means there is
the threat of terrorism. React
accordingly with the red
card to blow them up instead..