Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:27 PM
D.S.I.P. vrs Doubles/Undoubles
D.S.I.P. theory emulates forcing pass theory when it is not obvious from the bidding that you own the hand . In forcing pass theory the bidding makes it obvious for both partners that the opponents are intruders. In many other auctions it is not clear who owns the hand. The D.S.I.P. double in a competitive auction says “I think we do own the hand “ and I requesting permission to take the push to a higher level. If partners hand is suitable to take the push then he bids otherwise he takes his plus by passing with duplication of value or an unsuitable offensive hand. The pass in D.S.I.P. says I just prefer to defend ( maybe with a trump stack ) unless you have extra and can ask my permission. to take the push . The underlying assumption with D.S.I.P. is we own the hand in a competitive sense and want to signal the fact . We are upper range or maximum for our bidding so we show it by doubling or both partners just pass. D.S.I.P. doubles just asks a simple question of partner . Do we play the hand or do they play it doubled ?
The reason we have this D.S.I.P. bid at our disposal is that we have thrown out the trump stack penalty doubles. We redefine the penalty double to mean I have defense and want to take the push rather then defend. Partner can of course overrule this request by passing the double. A D.S.I.P. double is an offensive weapon and that’s how penalty doubles occur by partner converting the double. A pass may be a trump stack penalty double and like negative double theory partner will double with good defense and a willingness to take the push. At high levels this concept was born due to the clockwise nature of the game of Bridge. Partner would bid rather then double with an offensive hand and find too late and much to his dismay that partner had a trump stack in the opponents suit. The D.S.I.P. concept avoids that trap by transferring the decision to partner by doubling.
Contrast this with the double/undouble concept that was in vogue years ago . The underlying principle with that treatment is that we knew or highly suspected the opponents owned the hand. The double was a “permission to sacrifice” unless partner had enough defense to beat a high level contract. D.S.I.P. theory is not like that although it may turn out that way if the partnership takes the push and the analysis shows that the opponents could have made their contract. The D.S.I.P. double is asking partners permission to make the contract rather then sacrificing.
The double/undouble was centered around the pre-empt in “obvious sacrificing “ auctions. On the other hand , D.S.I.P. theory involves opening bids , sound overcalls & take out doubles where it is possible that we own the hand later in the auction due to being at the upper range of our respective bids. D.S.I.P. is common when they are pre-empting , they are interfering with our NT , they are overcalling and we are making negative and responsive doubles. D.S.I.P. comes about due to the wide ranges of HCP’s of takeout doubles , opening bids , responses , overcalls and negative doubles. However , we do not have the luxury of a 2/1 , demand two bid or Q bid to tell the partnership that we own the hand right away. The only way we can attempt to say we own the auction later in the bidding is by making a D.S.I.P. double. This double says I have a huge opening hand , response , overcall , takeout double , negative double , responsive double and on that basis we play the contract or they play their contract doubled. We do not have the nuisance value of partner misinterpreting the double as showing a trump stack. The D.S.I.P. double is an “anti- trump stack “ double.
Like forcing pass theory , when we double we must play the hand or the opponents must play their contract doubled.. Unlike forcing pass theory , if neither of us double , the opponents play the contract quietly. There is no double asking partners permission to sacrifice. You sacrifice or you do not. D.S.I.P. does not cater to pre-empts or, weak twos or jump overcalls which are tools of the trade for sacrificing.
D.S.I.P. takes a clue from Doubles/Undoubles at the slam level only . This is an excellent tool to prevent pseudo sacrifices when the opponents voluntary bid a slam after partner has bid a suit . The principle of D.S.I.P. is that trump stack penalty doubles do not exist. Penalty doubles only come about by being converted from a D.S.I.P. double . In slams it is folly to make a trump stack penalty double of a voluntary bid slam by the opponents. This assumption allows you to use D.S.I.P. theory like the double/undouble convention. Partner makes a bid of spades on the auction and you have xxxxx void xxxx xxxx and the opponents bid 6♥ . You make a D.S.I.P. double asking partners permission to sacrifice. Partner holds KQJ of hearts and says thanks but no thanks. It is here the D.S.I.P. and Double/Undouble theory merge.