Tuesday, August 30, 2005 12:11 AM

Hand Evaluation - NT Interference ( Defense )

PITBULLS:

I still have not bought into negative doubles at the two level when the opponents interfere with our NT opener. At the 3 level , negative doubles make a lot of sense but at the two level there is always a way with Rubensohl or Lebensohl or Q bids to find your right spot. You just do not need negative doubles. What you do need in my opinion is a bid that describes just “cards” so I do not know what course of action to take.

I think the double at the two level should be D.S.I.P. competitive except in one vulnerability. They are vul & we are not , the double should be a good old fashioned trump stack penalty double. At all other vulnerabilities, the double should just say I have “cards” so do something intelligent partner . I will never have a trump stack for my double as a green card or a 3NT bid will hit the table at these vulnerabilities. A D.S.I.P. double as opposed to a negative double can be defined as an “undisciplined negative double” . Negative doubles have strict unbid suit requirements whereas D.S.I.P. doubles just shows HCP’s so a willingness to compete on that basis alone.

The vulnerability should play a big part in determining our type of double. If we are vulnerable & they are not , a penalty double is certainly not a great idea. We have to beat them 4 just for a few IMPS if we have our vulnerable game. A double makes more sense to announce HCP’s with no other clear action. At equal vulnerability , I think a double showing cards rather than a trump stack stands out. It is best just to take our game rather than a set at equal vulnerability as a rule.

The reason I like Rubensohl is that partner announces her suit immediately so I am in a better position to take action if RHO interferes. Same principle exists with a D.S.I.P. double. If RHO makes a nuisance of himself after his partner has bid , I am in a better position to compete after a D.S.I.P. double by partner or introduce a 5 card major if I have one. We use a 2NT free bid as a club transfer so we need a bid that replaces a 2NT natural bid. The D.S.I.P. double does the job nicely.

What about after our 1NT overcalls ? Again I think doubles should be D.S.I.P. competitive with negative doubles at the 3 level .With the multitude of toys that the opponents use over your strong NT’s in this day and age , D.S.I.P. doubles are a good counter measure to put partner in the picture. Again as in all D.S.I.P. theory it’s a request to compete but leaving the option open for partner to convert. Penalty doubles are next & negative double last as an effective tool against their interference , in my opinion.

When we double a 1NT bid , it shows the top of the range of their NT + . If they play 10-12 , we double with 13 HCP , if they play 11-14 HCP we double with 14+ . If they play 15-17 doubling with 17+ or a hand with a suit & a good opening lead. Doubling NT contracts is just plain arithmetic. Arithmetic can bail you out of many risky situations. Partner doubles 1NT ( 11-14 ) so you have 2 Kings so do you leave it in ? In IMPS , it is a good gamble as the HCP’s could be exactly 20-20 . –180 is not a disaster in IMPS so why not go for the gusto ? In matchpoints it is disaster avoidance. You scramble to 2♣ as it is just too close to call. A pair took a ridiculous risk recently in IMPS. A weak NT (11-14 ) & passed around to partner who doubled as a passed hand . You have 10 HCP’s yourself, It is IMPS, so why not go for the home run & pass ? This gets XX so around to you again. A pass is absurd as you know from the passed hand partner that the HCP’s are about 20-20 . Taking out insurance against a disaster is easy as you scramble to 2♣. 1NTXX should have been defeated but it was not . Why take the chance when the arithmetic indicates that it is a bad gamble ? Lose a 20 IMP swing & the team game.