Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:28 PM
D.S.I.P. A Discussion
Do we need to declare trump stack doubles extinct in competition to play all the treatments discussed in all the D.S.I.P. e-mails ? Can we not just appreciate the fact that the penalty double is a “depending on concept” bid and recognize the auctions that the penalty double does not have a trump stack ? There are other “depending on concept” ambiguous bids like Q bids where we let the auction dictate the meaning of the bid so why not with penalty doubles ?
No , I do not think we can have this ambiguity for two reasons. One is that the ambiguity of the existing penalty double that there might be duplication of value in the opponents suit is enough to throw partnerships off. Knowing & guessing are two different things. Can you imagine having a splinter showing either a singleton or KQJ in the splinter suit ? The old penalty double is a single handed bid and the doubler wishes that partner just passes quietly. A D.S.I.P. double is just transferring the decision to partner for a joint decision. Penalty doubles are pulled as a matter of course and not a rare action is in standard penalty doubles.
The 2Nd reason is a structure similar to forcing pass theory can emerge. The reason that forcing pass theory works is that the partnership owns the auction with overwhelming HCP strength. This allows the partnership to give a new meaning to the pass as to encourage offensive action. In D.S.I.P. theory , we have no such luxury. We must give the traditional meaning to the pass . The pass means I just have my bid and prefer to defend or I have their suit and I want to defend . Nothing more nothing less. However , if we throw out the trump stack penalty double , we have an idle bid that we can use. Lets reverse the meaning of the double from the penalty double sense. Instead of saying partner do not bid lets define its meaning as I want to bid very badly but I have some defense. This automatically allows partners input into the decision. A luxury that bidding a suit directly does not give the partnership .
Allowing both partners input into penalty doubles is worth scrapping the traditional trump stack penalty double. With negative doubles both sides have input in converting re-opening doubles for penalty. If you do not want the double converted , you choose a different bid then a double. This is insurance against their contract making even with a trump stack against them or the penalty not compensating for what you can make offensively. D.S.I.P. theory has the same insurance policy as you do not make a D.S.I.P. penalty double unless you have the defense required to help beat the contract if partner converts for penalty. I would hazard a guess that if all successful trump stack doubles were analyzed , the other partner could have doubled. The law of 13 cards means that if one partner has a lot of cards in their suit , the other partner has shortness which would allow him to double with the appropriate defense in a high percentage of cases.
Penalty doubles are best when partner has already described their hand. In competitive situations where a D.S.I.P. double has occurred or other action taken , you have described your hand. Now , all subsequent doubles are penalty. Penalty doublers are not extinct in competitive auctions but they are extinct as the initial action.
D.S.I.P. theory borrows heavily from forcing pass structure and the negative double way of converting for penalties rather then doubling them directly. To play D.S.I.P. double theory is easy. You just need to know the rare sequences where trump stack doubles do apply. Misfit auctions ( includes trapping or exposing psyches ) , when partner pre-empts & when the opponents balance are the only auctions allowing trump stack penalty doubles as the first bid. C’est tout.