The Puppet Pass

In our recent blogs we have been looking at the effect of the wide-ranging takeout double that is becoming common among players of all ranks. We have noted the importance of taking into account the variability of the action, and the need for the opening side to resolve uncertainty by passing or doubling cooperatively with flat hands. We shall proceed along these lines for auctions that include a takeout double followed by a redouble.

In their 1989 book, ‘Partnership Bidding at Bridge’, Robson and Segal suggested an extension of the forcing pass condition from game forcing auctions to auctions in competition for the part score. Unfortunately it is unclear exactly when the forcing pass applies. The simplest example of a forcing pass is the pass by the opening bidder after a redouble by partner. The redoubler must either double the opponents for penalty or make a constructive call. Details of the standard approach are provided by Eddie Kantar on his website. A similar approach is discussed in detail by Eric Crowhurst in his 1987 book, ‘Acol in Competition’. The methods are geared towards extracting a penalty when the opposition gets into trouble at a low level.

For some the inclination to penalize is strong. One of Bertie Wooster’s most vivid memories of his schooldays is being given six of the juiciest by the headmaster after a midnight raid on the cookie jar. Perhaps it is an English characteristic that they have a strong penchant towards punishment for slight transgressions. As evidence consider the effort that here received its due punishment for being overly eager to inflict pain. It comes from the 2012 European Seniors’ Championship, Italy versus England.

Only the English duo tried to extract a penalty, giving up a score of 670. Many EW pairs played in 4♠, but one sees that their best game is 5♣. One pair reached that fine contract when East offered 3♣ over 2♥, another when West balanced with 3♣ over the forcing pass. It doesn’t matter which partner bids clubs constructively, but it has to be one of them if they are to find their 9-card fit. It is not a question of HCP, but of Total Tricks, and the number of honours held in the respective suits. Between them in the red suits (8-card fits) NS hold ♥KQT9 and ♦ AKQT. In the black suits EW hold ♠AKQJ and AKQJT. This abundance of honours in their main suits is going to increase the number of tricks available on the deal. (11 in clubs, 8 in hearts).

We can see that Vivaldi did well to bid 2♥, respecting his partner’s takeout double. One South passed the redouble forcing his partner to bid 2♦ , which lost the chance for a big score.  There is enough blame for each EW player to share in it. Neither player could be said to have a flat hand. Redoubling with a 5-card suit then suggesting penalty is not recommended with 10 HCP in the black suits. Who was in charge? In their system was Hallberg expected to respect the double, regardless, or could he pull if unsuitable?

A Simple Example from Eddie Kantar
Competitive bidding is truly complex with all 4 players at the table involved, so we begin by looking at a very simple case. If we can’t solve the simplest case, what hope is there going ahead?

The usual mantra is ‘after a redouble the opponents are not allowed to play in a contract undoubled.’ Which will it be – a double or a suit call? If East doubles he is telling partner that the penalty will outweigh the game bonus. How can he tell? He can’t, unless some information ts being passed by West that suggests rather than commands. Kantar suggests that opener pass on any flat hand, weak, strong, or in-between. That would help responder decide what is best on a guess as to the division of sides.

Here is my suggestion: let a pass ask partner to double unless he has an exceptional hand, say, a limit raise in hearts. Let’s call it a ‘puppet pass’. After partner doubles, opener will pass or bid a suit, forcing, to show a good hand unsuitable for a penalty. This is consistent with the classic ‘pass-and-pull’ option to show extra strength. If opener bids a suit immediately it is non-forcing, leaving further action to the redoubler. A direct double is cooperative, saying, ‘I don’t have a good double of clubs, but you can pass if your hand is largely defensive.’ Let’s look at the situation in more depth to see the basis of this approach in comparison with Kantar’s suggestions.

To Kantar Hand A is a clear double and he expects partner to pass for penalty. We pass with this hand expecting partner to double which we shall pass. If the takeout doubler bids diamonds or spades, partner may double for penalty, and we can pass because of the overall defensive nature of the hand.

Hand B is 3=5=3=2, with good controls in hearts, so we double with a balanced hand to give partner an option. He will need some quality length in clubs in order to make a double profitable. If he passes the double, we have a good lead in hearts and a later entry in spades to support a ruffing defence. Passing with this hand as Kantar suggests can give rise to greater uncertainty. Is partner’s double a command or a suggestion?

Hand C has 6 controls and a good minor, prime values. It has great offensive potential. Game should be available and 6♦ is possible. We treat ‘pass-and-pull’ as strong, so we need only to bid 2♦ after the double to force. With longer diamonds we can jump to 3♦ , and with a singleton club we can cue bid.

In these cases where the opponent bypasses spades, thus denying a fit in that strain, it is possible for the redoubler to make a good guess at the opener’s shape – the more spades the redoubler holds, the more likely the opening bidder is short in spades and so has length in one of the minors. If opener puppet passes he probably has long clubs and is short in spades (Hand A); if opener doubles cooperatively, he should hold a doubleton club and length in spades or diamonds (Hand B). Responder checks his spade suit to confirm the impression. With Hand C opener will bid diamonds regardless so it doesn’t matter what his partner does, but whatever he does will provide more information.

Total Trick Analysis
Methods should cover the most likely scenarios. Here is a table of the trumps available by both sides for the most common distributions where a cooperative penalty double is most attractive, namely, on misfit hands.

In Case I opener may pass to invite penalty and responder will double because he sees there is no fit in the red suits.
In Case II opener doubles cooperatively and responder has a choice which depends on the quality of his clubs. With length in spades, he can expect to have a diamond fit.
In Case III opener will be inclined to bid hearts, sooner or later (pass and pull).
In Case IV opener may have to bid 2♦ immediately to show weakness. If he doubles with defence outside clubs, responder will leave it in as he will know there is no fit in diamonds. Shortage in opener’s hand is less critical than shortage in responder’s hand, so the opener is able to suggest a penalty with just a singleton but with good defensive values otherwise. If opener were to pass as suggested by Kantar and responder doubles with 4 clubs, opener will be reluctant to pass for penalty. Here is an example.

Responder’s clubs look especially useful for defence. His length in spades, and the doubler’s failure to correct to spades or diamonds, indicates opener may be short in clubs, but that doesn’t much matter. He expects a club lead, and he has an entry in diamonds for a play on hearts or a further round of clubs. To generate tricks in 3NT opener’s intermediate hearts have to be good, and possession of the ♦ T might be critical.

In Summary
We know what makes a good, cooperative penalty double – a low number of Total Tricks with defensive values in the opponents’ suit(s). Ideally the hand should be a misfit. Of course, all this is known, so the methods adopted should be aimed at revealing this basic configuration. It helps if at least one of the players has limited his HCP range and at least one player has advertised a flat hand. It is dangerous to double for penalty with a hidden 5-card suit in the redoubler’s hand.