Friday, July 25, 2003 9:58 PM

Hand Evaluation - Shape before Strength ( Meckwell )

PITBULLS:

When Bridge was first invented , the emphasis with takeout doubles vrs overcalls was strength before shape . It was more important to double with a good single suited hand rather than overcall if you were too strong. “Too strong” was defined as around 16 HCP so hence you would double to show “strength before shape” . The old fashioned way allowed overcalls to be very light. Responders new suit was not even forcing one round.

Over the years , Bridge experts have reversed this way of thinking. With more and more people getting into auctions , these ambiguous doubles with a one suited hand caused a lot of problems . Partnerships did not know they had big fits as opponents jammed them with tactical bidding. The double not being takeout was also dangerous in competitive auctions as you thought you had a fit but you did not . Experts came to the conclusion that Bridge thinking should be “shape before strength” . You overcalled on very good single suited hands but only doubled if you felt that game would be missed if partner can not come up with a response. In other words , you have a very huge hand where you would jump to game after the double. This way of thinking has the good by-product of doubles being almost always for takeout with at least two unbid suits . This modern approach removed some ambiguity from T/O doubles.

Given this new way of thinking , Rodwell & Meckstroth have come up with a new concept to help describe minimum off shape T/O doubles. They call it “minimum equal level conversion” . What this means in their jargon is takeout doubles with two suited hands & a minimum are allowed. If partner bids a suit you do not hold , you “convert” to a different suit at the same level . Playing this style , you are not showing anything extra. You are in effect “rescuing” the contract to a better spot by scrambling in the rank order of suits. If you jump convert you are showing an invitational range two suiter.

Rodwell & Meckstroth do not make T/O doubles with minimums after a minor opener missing the majors but missing the other minor is possible. This way of thinking solves the age old problem of 5-4’s in the majors or 6-4’s with a minor/major re whether you should overcall or double. You now can double 1♥ with ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦Axxxxx ♣x so if partner bids 2♣ make an “equal level conversion” to 2♦ . This concept also allows you to double a minor with 5-4 in the majors instead of overcalling . You have ♠Axxxx ♥AKxx ♦xxx ♣x , RHO opens a diamond. You double finding your heart spot. Partner has ♠x ♥Qxxxx ♦xx ♣Axxxx so would have passed a 1♠ overcall missing +650 in hearts ! . To add insult to injury you go down 2 vul in 1 spade. Doubling with these kind of hands prevent partners from responding stupid 1NT bids in case you have hearts with your spade overcall .

Rodwell & Meckstroth realize that bidding understandings are based on frequency of use. Since the double showing a single suited hand “too strong to overcall” is now a very rare ( extinct in my mind ) bid , doubling with these off shape hands followed by minimum level conversions make a lot of sense. If you do have the rock with a double , upping the level can be done in safety as you are well over 16 HCP. The rank of suits allows you to force partner to a higher level to show your strong two suiter. Jumping to a higher level will also show a good two suiter playing this Meckwell style.

Against the Peter Jones team in the CNTC finals in Penticton , Tom Gondolfo won his side 12 IMPS with this way of thinking albeit creative in the Tom style. Tom held

x	A	A	x
	Q	J
	10	x
	x	x
		x
		x
		x

& the bidding with everyone Vul went 1♠, Tom doubled ! 1NT to my right so I bid 2♥ with ♠Q1098 ♥Kxxxx ♦x ♣J10x . 2♠ to my left so Tom leapt to 4♥ . The play was anti-climatic so we made +650 . At the other table Peter Jones overcalled 2♦ so they played a diamond partial. If the hand was a 6-4 , Tom would also double while the opponents would still overcall so 4♥ would still be missed by them.

Who am I to argue with Rodwell/Meckstroth or Tom’s creativity ??