Sunday, December 18, 2005
3:49 AM
Hand Evaluation – Doubles ( Natural Bids )
PITBULLS:
There are some very common misconceptions
about both negative & D.S.I.P. competitive double theory. One is that you
need extra or the unbid suits to re-open with a double with negative double
theory. Not true. You just need
to have a hand that you would have left in the penalty double, if you were not playing negative double theory. In
other words , a normal opening bid or better. With D.S.I.P.
or negative double theory , do not introduce
ambiguity to make a competitive double. When you have a more natural bid ,
do not :muddy the waters with a double , just make your natural bid.
The other misconception is that a negative ,
responsive or D.S.I.P. double can replace a natural bid. When you can bid naturally , avoid
an ambiguous systemic double if you can help it. A negative or competitive double
was invented to cover hands that you cannot
bid naturally usually due to the rank
of the opponents suit. . Sometimes you just do not have a bid that fits your
systemic understandings , but you have power. You
double competitively so that partner takes some action
or for you to show strength that you cannot show by merely competing. .
You hold ♠xx ♥AJxx ♦x
♣KQJ109x :
1♣ 1♠
Dbl 2♠
?
Do
not make a D.S.I.P. competitive double
or responsive double with this hand. You have two more natural bids available
& when you play “good bad 2NT” a bid that fits your system. You can bid 2NT
to compete & drop partner in 3♣ or pull to 3♥. You can just bid 3♥ naturally if you like this hand.
Same auction, change your hand to ♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦AQx
♣AJxx . You do not need a D.S.I.P. competitive double
with this hand as you have a natural 3♥
bid or the good bad 2NT to compete in 3♥.
A double would conjure up images that you only have 3♥’s with a bigger hand
, so you do not know what to do. In the Bridge World magazine , everybody Q bids when they have a
big hand & do not know what to do lacking a natural bid. With D.S.I.P.
double theory , a double replaces
the Q bid when you are in doubt. The
double is more flexible in that partner may convert for penalty knowing you
have extra values. It is difficult to convert a Q bid for penalty
.J
An artificial double does not replace a natural bid especially when
you have distribution.
Distribution is made for bidding
& not doubling which should tend to say I have more defense
with no natural bid available. ♠void ♥1098765 ♦x ♣AKxxxx with everybody vul LHO opens 1♠ , partner
overcalls 2♦ & they bid 2♠. A double here would be an atrocious bid as partner has the option of converting for penalty . Partner expects a flat
defensive hand with the two unbid suits. A 6-6 is a
distributional freak which is made for bidding.
You bid 3♣ & partner ends up putting you in 6♣ which makes 7♣.
A Tormentee doubled with her hand & when partner
doubled 4♠ for penalty left the double in because she thought she had a
hand that partner could reasonably
expect for a responsive double !!!!! 4♠x made & 7♣ makes the other direction. Not a bad swing for
the opponents.
With inverted minors
, you ignore a 4 card major if you have a huge hand & a fit with partners minor. By bidding an
inverted minor , you emphasize the fit & slam
bidding is easier. Susan Culham & a top B player
both held this hand . ♠Ax ♥AKxx ♦KQxxx ♣Qx , with partner opening 1♦ at both tables. The opponent interfered with a 2♠ jump overcall.
Susan Q bid 3♠ showing the huge hand
& fit with one bid but the other player doubled. Maurice got to
6♦ , made it &
at the other table they played it in 4♦ making +170.
After the negative double , they thought the double
turned on a game force which it does not. You need to Q bid to force ,
after you chose the wrong bid
going in. Negative doubles are ambiguous
bids as to HCP’s & distribution , so do
not use the bid unless you absolutely must with no natural bid available.
Bidding does not just
involve bidding your own hand. You
also “bid the table” . Sometimes your bid is
“balancing” on what the opponents & partner did or did not do . Sometimes it is just bidding the vulnerability.
Sometimes the vulnerability & table position negate negative double theory. The opponents are not vul , you are vul & you open 1♠ in 3rd seat with ♠KQxxx ♥AK ♦xxx
♣AQ10. LHO bids 3♦ so around to
you in the re-opening position. What has happened at this table
? The nv opponents both passed & pre-empted so using the “laws
of pre-empting” you are supposed to give
partner 7 HCP. What did partner not do ?
Partner did not raise spades at any level nor
make a negative double.
With partner being a passed hand , a penalty pass of 3♦ is a remote possibility & not recommended on
this vulnerability . So we should discount
that hand. Negative double theory simply does not apply with this vulnerability
& table position.
Partner should not re-open the
bidding without extra cards in
light of no negative double, the vulnerability or non action by partner. The re-opening
double must show an above average
hand because partner is a passed hand. You are not protecting partners penalty double of
3♦ as per negative double theory, you are just bidding your own hand.
If partner were not a passed hand, it is a different story. I do not
think trapping with diamonds should ever
apply on this vulnerability. If partner had a diamond trap with cards , she would have bid 3NT vul directly .
A diamond trap without cards by partner , opener
should just pass with a minimum in light of no negative double or raise by
partner. You have no chance of game so why bid ? I am
not sure on this vulnerability
that even if partner were not a passed hand , negative
double theory should apply. You must beat 3♦X 4 tricks to compensate for your vul
game.
Partner holds ♠A10x ♥xxxxx ♦x
♣xxxx , knowing that partner must hold a good hand should leap to 4♠ after a re-opening double. This is not even close as your singleton diamond
is huge & partners double shows above average values. As the cards lay , if the pre-empter had the
spade jack , 6♠ makes. In my opinion , the small hand is
guilty of “not bidding the table” in the first instance & misconstruing
negative double theory after that. There is a passed hand to his left with a pre-empt to his right so to take pressure off partner he should bid 3♠ initially. You do not pre-empt over a pre-empt
so with 10 HCP & spade support a jump to game would be in order as a passed
hand. Partner knows that the pre-empt puts you under
pressure so she will not punish you for your bid. The holders of these hands
missed their +650 in spades.
In IMPS ,
it is very difficult to “stop on a dime” vul against not in these auctions.
The contract will virtually never be doubled by a passed hand & a pre-empt , so as Peter Jones says 4♠ should be bid “just in case it
makes”. Quoting another Edmonton Bridge legend Lee Barton , “I am not good
enough to know that 3 of a major makes exactly 9 tricks vul
“. Given that statement , let’s try 4♠ & see what happens. Leave the +140
to the match point players.