Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:55 AM

D.S.I.P. - Cavendish

 

PITBULLS:

 

Stan Cabay wrote:

 

Gromov's hand from the Cavendish. Vul: None

 

Q4

KJ108543

KQ

A6

 

P-P-1♣-1♥ (Gromov)

1♠-2♥-2♠-4♥

4♠-P-P-?

 

So what should Gromov do? DSIP or what?

 

Bob Crosby wrote:

 

Yes , I would double saying I want to bid 5♥ but I have defense . The 7th heart makes it an offensive hand but the 7-2-2-2 and defensive cards means

that partner should decide with my input..

 

Stan Cabay wrote

 

Good decision, Bob, assuming partner understands the amount of defense you promise and leaves the double in (maybe +300 rather than maybe -300).  "Amount" is the critical

criterion which breaks or makes the usefulness of high-level DSIP doubles, in general.

 

I played this type of double (at the 5 and 6 level only) many years ago, but gave up on them because it was difficult to determine what constituted a defensive trick. We called

them double/undouble agreements, and you or maybe Barton were the source.

 

The problem remains. How much defense does your double of 4S promise on Gromov's hand below? Should partner pull with 1 defensive trick only? I realize this all depends on context, but to be effective, context must be defined as well.

 

Going back to Gromov's bidding, after 2S, he had a number of  choices other than an immediate 4H call. How would 3C, 3D, 4C, 4D followed by 4H (or dble) differ in meaning from an immediate 4H followed by a DSIP dble? What about first doubling 2S (DSIP to show values in both minors?) and then following through with 4H or another DSIP or both?

 

                Bramley

                KJ6

                A

                J53

                KJ8732

 

Petrunin                            Gromov

983                                     Q4

Q762                                  KJ108543

A109                                  KQ

Q95                                    A6

 

                Compton

                A10752

                9

                87642

                104

 

Gromov actually bid 5H (never heard of DSIP) and was -100 undoubled (as Zia says, " people don't double enough at IMPs"). What a sick bid by Compton (maybe they play support

doubles and Bramley forgot), but it worked - an extra +50.

 

Bob Crosby wrote:

 

Yes , possibly the D.S.I.P. double made up for the inaccurate bidding initially . A jump to game is the most ambiguous bid in Bridge . This is why you need a D.S.I.P. to clarify what kind of game bid you made later in the auction.  Each D.S.I.P. situation has a different defensive criteria . An overcall with a limited raise by partner should define the double as “booking “ the contract. Partner can then make his decision accordingly.

 

Bob, another hand for your arsenal on DSIP's

 

Cavendish 2004 Miller/Wold vs Hamman/Zia Both Vul

 

            Miller

            AK7653

            AJ98  

            Q10

            4

 

Zia                            Hamman

10942                         QJ

63                               KQ102

K75                            A642

10972                         AK3

 

            Wold                  

            8                         

            754                     

            J983                     

            QJ853                 

 

P(Wold)-P-1♠-D

P-2♣-2♠-D

P-?

 

 

In my opionion, the 2nd dble by Hamman is DSIP showing a "flat" 19+ hand

With less than 4 clubs. Zia can pass and collect 500 or 800. He actually

bid 3♣ and collected -300 when mercifully Wold passed. Strange, from a player like

Zia, who is known for saying that there aren't enough doubles in IMP's. For the

Cavendish,as much as about 60*25 = 1500 imps swung on this single DSIP hand. The

Current half-time leaders have some 1900 imps in total.

 

Stan

 

 

Thanks for your research on example hands . Real life examples helps show and develop the D.S.I.P.  theory.