Sunday,
October 09, 2005 7:28 PM
Hand
Evaluation – DBLS ( Rescuing Opponents )
PITBULLS:
There is an inherent risk in competing . If you do not compete
enough & sell out , you will lose IMPS in double
partial swings. If you over compete , you run the risk
of the penalty double or in some cases just rescuing
the opponents from a bad spot.
I detest rescuing bad bidders
from disaster by bidding again or in front of my partner when she wanted to double them. One of the main advantages of D.S.I.P. competitive doubles
is that you bring partner into the
picture when you want to compete again. A joint
decision will ensure that the opponents do not
get rescued & your side finds the best partial.
The
opponents are vul , you have ♠Kxx ♥QJ109 ♦Q1098 ♣xx . The opponents open 1♥
, partner overcalls 1♠ . RHO bids 2♥ so do you bid 2♠ ? Before
D.S.I.P. doubles ,
I would pass with this hand
because I did not want to encourage partner to compete
or make a pseudo sacrifice. With D.S.I.P. doubles, it is now safe to compete . Why ? because if they bid again with partner wanting to compete
with some defense , she will do so with a
double. I have no problem with a trump stack in their suit as I convert for penalties. Without D.S.I.P. doubles , time after time partner rescued them from 3♥ to 3♠ going down our way.
D.S.I.P. doubles prevent rescuing
the opponents by over competing.
The D.S.I.P. double also prevents
pseudo sacrifices as partner
would double first to compete again even at the game level .
A
local couple , very vocal
critics of D.S.I.P. competitive doubles , bid this hand the
following way . ♠Kx ♥KJx ♦xx ♣AKJ109x . I opened 1♠ in 3rd
seat& they overcalled 2♣ . This was passed
around to me who had a reasonable 6-4 but with a stiff heart so I chose to
re-open with 2♦. They wanted to compete again & not sell out for
2♦ which is reasonable.
He bid 3♣ to compete & partner doubled .
This went for –800 , his partner held ♠J10xx
♥Q10xx
♦KJ10xx
♣void . Playing D.S.I.P. doubles , you show a good overcall with defensive strength via a double. This of
course gets converted
so it’s our side that is
scrambling to hold 2♠ to the minimum
number down possibly doubled
! This action is the classic case of partner bidding to rescue the opponents
from a bad spot. I have seen this
happen more times than I can count .
This horrible practice provided one of the main
incentive for us to introduce D.S.I.P. competitive doubles.
A
double is just too versatile a bid
to waste
on trump stack doubles or takeout in competition. By not playing
D.S.I.P. doubles in competition, in my
mind is just straight bad single handed
gambling. Partner does not know
if you are bidding again on strength
or distribution. You must guess so if you guess wrong possibly a disaster. Playing
D.S.I.P. competitive doubles,
I can compete again to 3♣ so partner knows that I am doing
it on distribution rather than HCP strength as I did not make a D.S.I.P. double. Partner is now better placed
if more bidding takes place. In fact , playing
D.S.I.P. double allows you to compete more with distribution as partner
will not get carried away by
punishing you for pushing them
up. Without D.S.I.P. doubles , by over competing you caused partner to
make a bad penalty double because you “bid twice” . They make
the doubled contract ,
when all you wanted to do was push
them up. With D.S.I.P. theory , you have
described your hand as distributional when
you competed again just by bidding as opposed
to doubling . If
partner now doubles for penalty , she is basically on her own.
Your bidding philosophy ( trapping , avoiding misfit auctions ) should be based on not rescuing the opponents. Rubber Bridge players know that
the most lucrative way to make money
is to give bad bidders enough rope to hang themselves.
Extracting a penalty should be the first
thought & not the “thrill” of playing the hand yourself. Tom
Gandolfo opened 1NT , the vul opponents play Capelletti so they bid 2♣. I doubled with ♠Kxxx ♥QJx ♦Axx ♣Jxx which Tom alerted as Stayman.
Tom’s RHO bid 2♦ , so should Tom
introduce his 4 card major ? Of course not , as they
are vul
& you are not , so you may be just rescuing the
opponents from a disaster. If it is your hand ,
partner will double again , so you
may choose to show your 4 card heart suit at that time. They bid 3♣ which
partner doubles so you just pass. They go for 1100 with top defense & you can not make anything !!
Not rescuing opponents was
one of the prime motivators for D.S.I.P. double theory but the concept is just common sense. Barry Pritchard opened 1NT (weak
) nv vrs vul & I bid 2♦ for the majors with ♠Axxxx ♥1098x ♦Ax ♣Kx . Susan bid 2NT
which is our system ( any system ) is a good hand
& Barry backed in 3♦. Before he bid , you were planning on raising to 3NT based on the
vulnerability. Do you do so now ? No
, that is taking one of your options away . Let partner make the final
decision with you describing your balanced defensive hand
with a double. Partner knows you did not double 1NT initially & you show at
least 9 cards in the majors so preserve your options. Susan happily passes
& we get +500 instead of –100 in 3NT which everybody else in the field did.
We like the idea of support
doubles as a 3 card raise is very valuable information to have. What we do not like is support XX’s which rescues doubles in the sandwich position. When the opponents
are doubling with the possibility of a misfit ( both
ways ) , you let them play
the hand. Bidding 1NT is rescuing them if responder has
a decent hand so why not define a 1NT
bid as a support XX ? This leaves the XX to show a
good hand so
let the penalty doubles commence.