Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:58 AM

D.S.I.P. - Green Light

PITBULLS:

Again a decision to sacrifice cost us a KO match in a recent regional in Victoria. Instead of +500 our partners were -300. A wrong decision with the standard "green light" understandings being the culprit . The opponents were vul & you were not. You open 1♣ and partner responds 1♥. They bid 1♠ and you raise hearts but they persist in spades. Partner competes to 3♥ but RHO bids their vulnerable game.

You hold ♠Qxx ♥AKQx ♦Kxx ♣1098 so what do you do ?  Standard understandings means a pass is a "green light" as you did not make a penalty double. This understanding is inherently wrong & silly. Just because you can not double for penalty does not mean you want to take offensive action. You may just want to sit & defend . Partner now makes the wrong decision to sacrifice & +500 was available . Should this hand have doubled to prevent partner from sacrificing ? No , way too many HCP's tied up in partners heart suit. A recipe for a disaster.

Contrast the same auction playing D.S.I.P. double theory. In D.S.I.P. theory , the pass is inverted to be the penalty double just like in negative double theory. If partner wishes to sacrifice , she must "ask permission " first with a double if she has some defense. This would get converted & all is well. What if the opener wanted to sacrifice with an offensive hand but having defense ? She would double saying I would like to sacrifice but I have defense. Partner will either go along with the sacrifice or nix it. You bring the partnership into the decision making process. As usual with standard understandings , the partnership is ignored.

Without the D.S.I.P. structure , sacrificing is just singlehanded throwing dice. You either guess right or guess wrong. The operative word is guess that should not be a basis for decision making in a partnership game like Bridge