D.S.I.P. Theory
Give me that “old time religion” . I
yearn for the days of Bridge where bidding was designed to mean something other
than just disrupting the opponents bidding. Openers now mean nothing , overcalls
at the one level or 2 level is just shooting dice & pre-empts are virtually
suicidal. These bidders prey on the lack of methods designed to counter – act
these “terrorist tactics” . Partnership Bridge takes a beating also. If partner
gets “blown up” also it is deemed “collateral damage”. The following theory in
an attempt by me to level the playing field.
In
my Bridge experience , the worse partnership disasters are those that occur
with confusion over penalty doubles. Bridge bidding is a language. A language
that allows ambiguity i.e. two different meanings for the same word is
confusing so often leads to misunderstandings. Same with the penalty double in
Bridge . You can make a penalty double with a majority of HCP’s or
a trump stack in their suit. How is partner to know the difference ? The answer
is that he can not , so this often leads to disaster. Pulling doubles in
competition becomes a precarious gamble
based on this ambiguity . If you do not pull doubles , they often make
their doubled contract or you can make a vul game or slam but the penalty
extracted nowhere compensates. Actually the advocates of trump stack doubles
get annoyed when partner does make a penalty double based on HCP’s alone
. I do not blame them , as these doubles should be pulled more often then not .
What compounds the problem is that people compete more now so non
trump stack doubles are being invented to combat this “invasion of privacy” .
My answer to this dilemma is make all penalty
doubles “trump stack” doubles or none of them in competitive
auctions where forcing pass theory does not apply. With modern
bidding using the “law of total tricks “ with the propensity to up the level
when they have a good fit , I strongly feel that the trump stack double
is the one to become extinct when
used as the initial action. It is far more useful to have the
penalty double just based on HCP’s & convey the message of Do Something
Intelligent Partner or D.S.I.P.
Trump stack penalty doubles only occur by converting
partners double or doubles later in the auction. Bad
decisions in competitive auctions are the norm . Confusion with penalty doubles
certainly does not help. D.S.I.P. theory & Forcing Pass theory
brings some much needed structure to all competitive auctions. Having duplication
of value in their suit come down in the dummy is the most disappointing
aspect of competitive bidding. Having a method to identify this
duplication will have enormous benefit in competitive decisions. Present
penalty doubles do not do the job adequately as there is ambiguity re
duplication of value in their suit(s). The standard interpretation of a pass in
competitive auctions (where you do not own the hand ) does not have the superb understanding of a forcing
pass . A forcing pass simply means no duplication of value or quick
losers in the enemy suit. However, this understanding is limited to auctions where you obviously
own the hand.
In my mind anyway , the trump stack penalty double
destroys the concept of competing.
In a competitive auction after partner bids again, this 2nd bid
introduces ambiguity. Is partner just competing on distribution or does she
have values ? Maybe she is making an advance sacrifice against their “cold”
+140 ? Do you punish her by competing
again possibly driving them to a makeable game or go for a set ? Do you pass &
miss a game yourself when she did have extra values ? The answer is simple.
Remove the trump stack double from competitive auctions as the initial double.
The first double shows a good hand with quick tricks for defense. Eric
Kokish calls them “transferable values” .
Necessity is the mother of invention. One of the hands
that got me seriously thinking how silly it is to consider all penalty
doubles as “trump stack” doubles was a hand I had an argument with my ex
partner Peter Jones a staunch proponent of all doubles should be of the “trump
stack” variety. I sent the hand around to people whose views I respected so an
answer came back from Gordon
Campbell . He suggested that this particular double on our auction was a D.S.I.P.
double therefore partner is encouraged to pull the double depending on his
hand. Ambiguous bids in Bridge can be
interpreted the same as ambiguous words in a natural language. You can deduce
the meaning of the bid or word “depending
on the context” in which the word or bid was used. Gordon implied that the
penalty double in this particular auction was a DSIP double as opposed to a trump stack double.
Another understanding that spurred me on to thinking that trump stack doubles had
to go was the “green
light” understanding. By failing to make a trump stack double in a
competitive auction , this somehow gave partner permission to bid again . This
is outright stupid & single handed. Most of the time the
double just allowed declarer to make his contract or force partner to pull the
double as he did not have exactly as advertised .You end up go for a number in
your contract. This way of thinking is fine at the 5 level or
higher because at these rarified levels you can have them beat in your own hand
with their trump. D.S.I.P. theory converges with trump stack doubles at
these very high levels.
Another reason for eliminating the trump stack double is
to rid Bridge of the “bidding
cop” . This is the annoying partner who wants to punish bad bidders with
his penalty doubles because he does not like the sound of the bidding in a
competitive auction or just to announce his trump stack. Quite often this leads
to disaster as they make the contract mainly because he is locating cards &
trump. He makes a single
handed decision for the partnership in competition without input
from partner. Trump stack penalty
doubles are one the most single handed actions in Bridge so detracts
from the partnership
element of the game of Bridge.
Still
another reason for eliminating trump stack doubles from your system is the IMP
scale itself. The IMP scale taxes your big winnings so to speak. As
an example , say your good bidding partners are in 2♥
making for +110 . The opponents bid & play badly in 4♥ at your table so you collect +300. You win 410
or 9 IMPS. Say you double them at your
table and knowing the trump situation
they play it better for –500 or they
just go for –800. The 800 added to your partners +110 is 910 or 14 IMPs which
is only a gain of 5 IMPS. The 500 added to 110 is 610 or 12 IMPS. You are only
gaining 3 or 5 IMPS for your trump stack penalty double ! Not worth it in my opinion for the advantage
of playing DSIP doubles.
Another reason for D.S.I.P. doubles is the variability
& ambiguity of bids in Bridge including Q bids . Openers are getting
lighter & lighter , so there is a huge variance in defensive values there.
Overcalls vary quite drastically in strength as do takeout doubles , negative
doubles , re-opening doubles, responses
& systemic toys. With this variability how can one partner judge that
a trump stack penalty double is warranted ? If partner is minimum , they will probably make the contract . If he
pulls he will not like your duplication of value therefore he gets doubled in
his contract. D.S.I.P. theory lets the partnership decide by allowing
partner to make a D.S.I.P. double with his good defensive hand so you can safely
convert with your trump stack. No guessing or pulling of trump stack
doubles required. This treatment is good
insurance against a doubled contract making. Instead of being afraid to
make a trump stack double in case partner is light for his values you just pass
thereby finding out by letting partner double with good defense. This part of
D.S.I.P. theory is quite similar to negative double theory except
partner is not obligated to double. D.S.I.P. theory prevents bad penalty
doubles by trigger happy partners. Penalty doubles are shown by trapping &
putting the green card on the table unless partner has made a non pass.
D.S.I.P. doubles define your Q bids. You always double to show a good hand with
no fit so Q
bids can always show a fit for partners suit. D.S.I.P. doubles prevent
rescuing the opponents from bad spots & allows your side more freedom to compete
without partner punishing you by doubling the opponents. If she does make a
trump stack double, she is doing it at
her own risk after you have just competed.
Another justification for D.S.I.P. doubles is protecting
against a tactic by opponents trying to steal your hand based on their good
trump fit or just straight overbidding . They know the law of total tricks so
they try to buy the contract when you have the preponderance of HCP’s . The
weapon of choice against these tactics is the penalty double to tell your
partner that you have the balance of power. These balance
of power doubles are D.S.I.P.
The 2Nd double in Bridge is defined as
D.S.I.P. & not trump stack penalty. If partner makes a takeout double
followed by a 2nd
double he is just showing the upper range of his previous double , not a
trump stack in the opponents suit. If he makes a negative double , doubles
again it is not trump stack but showing a maximum for his previous bids. If you
overcall followed by a double , it is not a trump stack but showing a good hand
in the D.S.I.P. way. No ambiguity in these auctions as trump
stack doubles do not exist as the initial action.
Reading between the
lines for the meaning of penalty doubles in a particular auction is fine but ambiguity still
leads to disasters. I decided to see if “trump stack doubles” can be completely
eliminated from the bridge vocabulary in competitive auctions when used as
the initial bid. I did some research & I discovered the most World
Class players already hold this view . Garozzo in his system called Ambra
has a very narrow definition of trump stack penalty doubles. These doubles are
virtually extinct in his system. As much as I dislike testimonials to
prove the validity of Bridge theory , I will make a few exceptions. The
following is from the convention cards of world class players. Meckwell
“Negative X's
at lower levels, Card-showing X's at more cramped” . Soloway-Hamman “Frequent
non-PEN DBL;” Shmurski-Puczynski “Frequent non-PEN DBL,” and most of the others I examined played non penalty type competitive doubles.
The Bridge World has circumvented the issue for decades. Quoting one
Master Solvers director “Doubles corrupt , and absolute doubles corrupt
absolutely”. Panel members for years say “I like action doubles or they
say if we play competitive doubles in this situation I double “ . Nobody ( until
now) advocates throwing out trump stack doubles completely as the first bid
in all actively competitive auctions where you do not own the
hand. Eric Kokish feels that a double in high level competitive auctions should
be interpreted just like a forcing pass when you do own the auction. My
sentiments exactly. Pass – double inversion.
The original inventers of Bridge had penalty doubles to
show a trump stack in the opponents suit. Changing this concept in
competition needs a constructive framework. Forcing pass theory has
a special meaning of pass & double to conform to the situation where you
own the auction with the opponents sacrificing. Borrowing a page from forcing pass theory , we define D.S.I.P.
theory to apply in all competitive auctions up to any level ( 5 level excluded)
where we do not own the hand.
There is an added requirement in that it must be a “competitive” auction with
both sides still bidding. As in forcing
pass theory , we can now redefine the meanings of double and
pass. Also an attitude adjustment is needed to play D.S.I.P. double
theory . Instead of never pulling
my penalty doubles , the new theory says “please pull my penalty doubles”
unless you have a reason to convert. This re-definition of a penalty
double is the basis of D.S.I.P. theory . A double in competition is a far too
useful & versatile a bid to waste as showing a trump stack in the
opponents suit. In fact , a D.S.I.P.
double is equivalent to a forcing pass when you do own the auction. A
D.S.I.P. doubles means , I prefer to bid again but I will abide by your
decision partner.
Since Bridge is played in a clockwise direction
means that one partner may have to act before the other partner gets a chance
to make a penalty double in a competitive auction. Quite often bad bidders are rescued
by your own partner , who bids before you get a chance to make the correct
choice of bids i.e. a penalty double. Similar to the framework of forcing pass
theory , we have a new
meaning for the penalty double in direct competition. The double
means that you want to bid but you have defense so you defer the decision
to partner in case he has a trump stack . This means partner can
never “get in your way” if a penalty double was coming up. If partner was going
to pull your penalty double anyway , he is allowed to bid . The pass is defined
differently from forcing pass theory. The pass
means I want to defend so I could possibly have a trump stack in their suit..
This way , as in forcing pass theory , both partners have input into the
decision. This takes the single handed penalty double away from the
partnership. Remember you can not have it both ways. Sometimes opponents bid
badly in competitive auctions so you are looking at a juicy trump stack penalty
double. Take
your fix & put the green card on the table. Should D.S.I.P. theory even
apply before the 5 level after game has
been bid ? Yes it should because of the clockwise order of the game of Bridge.
The D.S.I.P. double prevents pseudo sacrifices so that alone is worth its
weight in gold.
You must know Forcing Pass theory with the auctions
that turn on forcing passes to use D.S.I.P.
theory effectively. You have to switch back & forth from the two
“modes” depending on whether you own the auction or not in competitive
auctions. Forcing pass theory takes precedence over D.S.I.P. theory.
D.S.I.P. theory applies in the pass
out chair also . You still have to ask partners permission with a double if
you want to bid. He could have a trump stack over there which caused him to
pass. Instead of the simplistic meaning of
a penalty double suggesting that the opponents can not make a hand
& the scoring change accordingly , penalty doubles are redefined
into two classes. Doubles when you own the hand & those made when you are
competing. There is a 3rd
doubling “mode” in the game of Bridge. This is where the auction dictates that
the opponents own the hand or bid their contract to make. A double in
these auctions is still D.S.I.P. saying I have defense but I would like to bid
again as a sacrifice. This treatment is way better then the old
“double/undouble” as the doubler should have them close to booked in quick
tricks. Partner having a say in the proceedings may prevent pseudo
sacrifices which is one of the worst Bridge calamities.
D.S.I.P. doubles at high levels take over after the
levels that negative doubles cover right up to and including 4♠. Always keep in mind though these D.S.I.P. doubles
at this level still imply that we do not own the hand . If we do own the
hand , of course , forcing pass theory is in effect and penalty doubles are
used to discourage partner from further bidding. D.S.I.P. doubles are the
default when forcing pass theory does not apply . Trump stack doubles are
permitted only in tightly
defined situations where we are not competing actively. Normally D.S.I.P.
theory applies if the opponents have given us a chance to find a fit
.If we have not had a chance to show a fit , A D.S.I.P. at high levels or in non-fit
situations are card showing as opposed to I want to bid in
your suit. If we have shown a fit earlier , a double says I want to bid
again no matter how high the level ( below the 5 level).
Judging “duplication of value” is a huge part of
Bridge . Splinters were invented to discover duplication of value and they are
very successful. Duplication of value in the opponents trump suit is a disaster
in competitive auctions . In order to have full weight to your singleton in
their suit , partner must not have any values there. Without DSIP theory you
just have to guess and if you are wrong disaster strikes as the double minus
occurs. D.S.I.P. theory , by having the
double show no duplication
of value in the opponents suit & wanting to take offensive action ,
allows partner to pass the double when he has values in their suit. No
guess work at all. D.S.I.P. doubles can be thought of as “check back”
doubles. Do you have duplication in their suit or not ? If not , you
must bid in most cases. Another way of thinking D.S.I.P. doubles
is that they are transfers. You transfer the penalty double decision
to partner as you have announced your hand. Announcing your hand is &
should be the basis of all penalty doubles.
A D.S.I.P. double can be thought of as asking partners
permission to make a bid . Like forcing pass theory, the D.S.I.P. double
brings in a joint
partnership decision to a penalty double. Trump stack doubles are single
handed actions . D.S.I.P. doubles are not as you get partners approval
to bid or convert for penalty. The worst platitude in Bridge was “do not pull
my penalty doubles”. D.S.I.P. doubles are based on all penalty doubles are
to pulled unless partner wants to convert for penalty. Since pulling
doubles is a common practice playing this theory its best to use Lebensohl
at high levels when doing so. Pulling the double to 4NT first forces partner to
bid 5♣ and your bid shows little or no values. A direct pull means you
think you can make the contract so slam is a possibility. Judgment is required
in converting
D.S.I.P. doubles for penalty. This judgment is a thorough understanding of that
factors that make a hand good for defensive purposes. Like in negative double
theory , you have an obligation to bid partners possible trump stack double. If
you have the defensive tricks , by all means re-open
with a double in competitive situations.
D.S.I.P. theory is a tool to combat the opponents
pre-empts. These nuisance bids work
better then they should because they exploit
the ambiguity of penalty doubles. Wrong decisions are made time after time
because the ambiguity of trump stack vrs HCP’s doubles muddle the
decision making process. Throwing out trump stack doubles in these
auctions simplify matters. Negative doubles & D.S.I.P. doubles blend right
up to the 5♦ level when dealing with
pre-empts. There are no direct trump stack doubles of pre-empts at any
level .
D.S.I.P. doubles are a new tool . Depending on
vulnerability conditions do not “hang’ partner by overusing the double. Give
him some leeway.
Free bids are an old concept which I feel have no merit in the modern game.
With light distributional openers , you trap yourself by not bidding &
informing partner the nature of your hand. I advocate just bidding so if you do
have a genuine free
bid , make a D.S.I.P. double later in the auction to convey your extra
values. D.S.I.P. doubles are competitive doubles. The D.S.I.P. double means you
are “serious”
when you are competing. The corollary is that bidding again means that you have
just paid your card fees so it is not conveying any messages to partner. The
negative inference that you did not make a D.S.I.P. double gives you a lot of freedom
in competitive auctions.
When Bridge was invented , it was thought that a 2NT bid in
competition would be useful to show a flat hand in the invitational HCP
range . In modern bidding that meaning has virtually disappeared. 2NT is used
as Lebensohl , scrambling , or a two suiter . Ok. How do you describe the old
fashioned 2NT
hand ? The D.S.I.P. double replaces
the 2NT bid if possible. D.S.I.P. & the good-bad
2NT convention is a good mix. When the opponents compete to the 2 level in
the sandwich position , 2NT is useful to show the difference between competing &
making invitational bids. The “good” is bidding directly & the “bad” is
bidding 2NT.
There are still auctions where the trump stack double
applies. If your partner pre-empts with a weak 2 , 3 or 4 or a systemic toy
like unusual 2NT or Michaels then trump stack penalty doubles still apply.
This is especially so if partner of the pre-empt makes a systemic forcing bid
saying “we own the hand”. There is one
exception to that statement though. When partner joins the party by supporting
partners suit either by supporting the pre-empt directly or implied with a lead
director , a double is now D.S.I.P. Jump
to games or pre-emptive jump raises are auctions where trump stack doubles
still apply ( essentially they are pre-empts).
You do not want partners input into a D.S.I.P. decision as he has
already done so. If the auction is clearly a misfit
auction you probably would not make a D.S.I.P. double as there is no
safe resting place. The forcing
1NT auctions is an exception to the misfit auction treatment. D.S.I.P.
doubles apply in those auctions. When the opponents
balance, I feel trump stack doubles still apply if the doubler is over
the suit . Balancing is a gamble so there is definitely a win lose
proposition. If you lose it can be very costly. Another situation where trump
stack doubles still apply is trapping
& exposing psyches. When you are stacked in the opponents suit it is
best to pass and see if they get into hot water. When that happens there are
doubles that are of the trump stack variety. D.S.I.P. doubles are defined only
when you compete. When you drop
out of the auction and subsequently double it is of the trump stack variety.
D.S.I.P. doubles are competitive doubles defined when you are directly
competing . Competitive doubles previously were defined for very narrow
auctions ( just when you and opponents are raising each others suits ) .
D.S.I.P. theory builds on competitive doubles. In a nutshell , D.S.I.P.
doubles are competitive doubles where a double means you want to bid
with defense , a direct bid says you want to compete without defense and pass
just means I want to defend. There is no room for a trump stack double
with these understandings until later in the auction..
D.S.I.P. doubles apply with initial actions only
in competitive auctions. What about subsequent
doubles in a competitive auction after a few rounds of bidding ? These
doubles are obviously penalty as you have already made a D.S.I.P. double or a
bid and partner is aware of the situation. You do not make a 2nd
D.S.I.P. double after you already have the information needed to make a penalty
decision. Penalty doubles are still made in competitive situations but after
partner has already contributed to the decision making process.
The strong
NT & defending against the weak or strong NT brings in D.S.I.P.
theory. When the opponents overcall your strong NT , D.S.I.P. doubles are in effect. Negative doubles
at the two level are not useful in my opinion. 2NT is usually used as a relay
or transfer so what replaces that bid ? A D.S.I.P. double fills the gap nicely.
I like penalty doubles to remain on one vulnerability – they are & we are
not. As the strong NT is the corner stone of your system , it is important to know when Forcing
Pass theory & D.S.I.P. theory applies. When your side doubles
a weak NT or a strong NT and they run,
D.S.I.P. doubles apply. This is because partner quite often rescues the
opponents before the original doubler can double them for penalty. A common
D.S.I.P. theme.
There is a situation when negative doubles turn into
D.S.I.P. doubles . This occurs when the opponents pre-empt at the 3 level
either in the direct or sandwich position. This D.S.I.P. double has a special
name “Thrump
Doubles” as Marty Bergen invented the bid. The D.S.I.P. double just shows
cards or a long suit so asks partner to bid 3NT with a stopper in their suit.
Re-opening
doubles are a class of D.S.I.P. doubles. If within the range covered by
negative doubles , re-opening doubles are just hands that you would have
otherwise left in a penalty double. In other words , you have cards and no fit
with partner. Out of the negative double range , re-opening doubles are still
D.S.I.P. as they just show defense and are not “take-out bids” per se. Even in
NT auctions I play re-opening doubles as D.S.I.P. and the over/under
rule applies.
Expert players know that doubling the opponents freely
bid slams is a bad strategy. If you are not in the auction , the double is lead directing. If you or your
partner has been in the bidding &
you are not on lead your double is D.S.I.P. asking partners permission
to sacrifice. This is only at the slam
level so is similar to the old double/undouble that was in vogue years ago.
D.S.I.P. doubles assist in your
balancing auctions . After balancing , a double can help you compete or
allow partner to convert for penalty if they re-enter the auction . Balancing
is an art form & making a belated D.S.I.P. double can give partner an
indication of the strength of your hand. . Penalty doubles still exist when
partner makes a balancing
double. This is just due to the nature of the beast that the bid shows
shortness in their suit.
Action
doubles are a subset of D.S.I.P. doubles. These doubles want you to take
some action even after you have may have pre-empted ! You do not want to
sell out so you double to show that you have more defense than announced
previously so partner take some action.
D.S.I.P. doubles can occur after your competitive tools
such as weak
two’s , unusual NT and Michaels bids. If partner had a chance to make a
forcing bid like 2NT and did not , D.S.I.P. doubles can apply. When partner is
a passed
hand and partners makes a pre-emptive weak 2 or higher , D.S.I.P. doubles
apply.
Systemic
toys that you use to disturb their NT
, Michaels Q bids and Unusual NT can all benefit from D.S.I.P. theory.
These bids vary depending on the vulnerability and since they announce suits
and are variable in strength , D.S.I.P. doubles are necessary to announce the
strength and competitive intentions. With the proper vulnerability a D.S.I.P. double
can give partner the option to sacrifice or convert for penalty. This action is
even applicable after they have reached 3NT after a strong NT opener by them.
These bids and their T/O double bring out the concept of “pass
& double” . In almost all these sequences except one defined by them
being vulnerable and you not , the double is D.S.I.P. You should announce your intentions by redoubling or doubling
their systemic toy to turn on forcing pass theory for penalty doubles.
Conventional doubles like negative , support , responsive & maximal doubles are all
“disciplined” or conventional D.S.I.P. doubles. They are not penalty but convey
a specific meaning. D.S.I.P. doubles can blend in with negative doubles & support
doubles for difficult hands . Finding a 5-3 major fit after a negative
double is a difficult auction. D.S.I.P. doubles are competitive doubles that can be used as “game try”
doubles showing specifically 3 trump and limit raise values. This frees the
Q bid that shows limit raise or better values to show 4 trump if limit raise
values and 3 or more with “better” or forcing to game values.
Do not forget that D.S.I.P. doubles do not necessarily
show flat defensive hands. The double can be made on wild distributional
hands as long as there are defensive tricks available. In order to get a
feeling for the new concept of DSIP doubles , it is helpful to discuss them in
the context of all competitive situations in bridge where a penalty double might
occur.
·
Q
Bids
Bridge was played for decades before HCP’s were invented.
Culbertson advanced the idea of “honour tricks” or quick tricks for
evaluating an opening hand. Even with HCP’s introduced , the notion of
quick tricks never left the requirement for an opening bid. Defensive quick tricks
and D.S.I.P. doubles are a good marriage. HCP’s get eliminated by distribution
but quick tricks are eradicated way less often. What is the defensive requirement
for a D.S.I.P. double ? I feel this requirement should me measured in quick
tricks and if made by the opener or overcaller should be within ½ of a
trick of booking their contract. If the double is by responder ,
the double should be maximum for their bid but measured in quick tricks.
This D.S.I.P. theory is not set in stone yet. My regular partners Tom Gandolfo , BJ Trelford & I are still working out treatments. Dr. Stan Cabay is assisting us in pointing out contradictions or asking pointed questions. Stan sent in some sample hands from the recent Cavendish tournament. We are building up an archive of hands that occur which re-enforce D.S.I.P. theory.
The name D.S.I.P. for these doubles I got from a Calgary bloke named Gordon Campbell. Many people have objected to the I in the acronym . Knowing that partners are mere humans do something intelligent may not always be the case. Some of us brainstormed to find alternative meanings for the “I”. What is in a name ? If I had a chance to rename these competitive doubles, I would call them check back doubles. You are checking back with partner to get the OK to compete again.
Trump stack penalty doubles have been around since the beginning of Bridge. Why rock the boat and subscribe to D.S.I.P. theory ? In a word, because it’s a better way to use the penalty double in competition. During the 1980’s and 1990’s experts were defining more and more auctions where trump stack doubles do not apply. Until D.S.I.P. theory , nobody took the final step of declaring trump stack penalty doubles extinct in competitive auctions as an initial action and coming up with a new meaning for the double & pass. Forcing pass theory works because both partners contribute to the final decision in forcing auctions. D.S.I.P. theory works for the same reason in competitive auctions. D.S.I.P. theory is a subset of Forcing Pass Theory but for auctions where forcing pass theory does not apply ! D.S.I.P. brings the partnership into the decision making process for penalty doubles. Wrong decisions in competition are “match breakers”. Double partial swings , double game swings , double slam swings & pseudo sacrifices are the big ticket items. Experts have been moving away from “trump stack doubles” for decades. I feel the time has come to put competitive doubles in a structure similar to forcing pass theory. Having this structure to assist in these auctions is a must have for established partnerships. Penalty doubles ( trump stack) , like the dinosaur , are becoming extinct as an initial action. Good riddance …
A disclaimer for all the D.S.I.P. theory above. The concept was invented for IMPS or very good fields in Match Points. D.S.I.P. theory and weak match point fields are not a good mix. Borrowing a page from the instructional books for dummies series , I have tried to simplify the theory in D.S.I.P. Doubles for Dummies . The knock against D.S.I.P. doubles is that they are “transfer bids” . They transfer the blame to partner. This is true but you arm partner first with information based on defensive tricks and lack of HCP’s in their suit. Partner is better placed to make the final decision. If it does not work out , blame the card gods.
Converting
to D.S.I.P. theory is not easy. Old habits are hard to break . In
our Bridge “puppyhood” we remember many telephone numbers we have inflicted on
the opponents because of single handed penalty doubles. However, could you have got the same result by
converting partners D.S.I.P. double ?
But you must realize , how many of these numbers were accumulated against
good opponents in top level IMP games ? I would hazard a guess , not too many.
These is no free lunch in Bridge. You must give up something to get something
back . Justifying
a new theory or converting to a new way of thinking needs
to pass the test of time. So far in my partnership , there is no need to
turn back the clock.
Bob Crosby