The Guessing Game

In a constructive auction one strives for accuracy by exchanging precise information with one’s partner. There is value in accuracy when the hand belongs to your side. It can be a different matter when the auction becomes competitive. If it is a battle for part score, or an attempt to steal a game, there is value to be got from uncertainty. This applies to both sides. Some bids are what may be termed two-way bids, representing either good sacrifices or possible makes. Part of the mix are ‘negative’ doubles – calls that represent a wide variety of conditions dependent on the previous actions.  Let’s look at one such auction that occurred last week at our club to illustrate the extremes which can be reached.

Partner opens 1♠, nonvulnerable versus vulnerable, the RHO doubles, and you have to find a bid with fine support the spade suit: ♠ AQ94 ♥ QJ3 ♦ 54 ♣ T984 – 8 losers. What is your bid?  Does it help if I tell you that in theory they can make 3♦ and your side can make 2♠?  Without interference I have an easy 3♠ limit raise showing 8-10 HCP, 4 spades and 8 losers, a perfect description of my hand under our rules, however, after interference can we be sure that the same rule applies? Is the proper bid 2NT, showing a limit raise, leaving 3♠ to show a weaker hand? That would enable the LHO to bid her minor after which I would have to bid again giving them a second chance. I ‘solved’ this problem by bidding 4♠ on the assumption that even down 2 would be better than letting them play in 3 of a minor, making 110. Here are all 4 hands.

 

Dealer: West Vul: NS	North ♠   K6 ♥   T9864 ♦   KQ972 ♣   A
West ♠   JT8752 ♥   AK ♦   T63 ♣   K6		East ♠   AQ94 ♥   QJ3 ♦   54 ♣   T984
	South ♠   3 ♥   752 ♦   AJ8 ♣   QJ7532

 

Against 4♠ North led the ♣A, South signaling with the ♣7. Perhaps thinking this might have suit preference implications, he switched to the ♥T. This provided declarer with a diamond pitch after he took the necessary spade finesse. This woeful performance was repeated at 4 of 13 tables. Putting 4♠ down 2, or 1 doubled, would have been a top shared with just 1 pair. Now let’s look at how the auction might have proceeded in a reasonable manner when East cautiously bids what his hand is worth.

John	North	East	South
1♠	Dbl	2♠	3♣
Pass	3♦	3♠	All Pass

In this setting South has enough to push in clubs, and North corrects to 3♦. His negative double methods allows for the possibility of an Equal Level Conversion. In other words, his negative double does not fit the normal requirements. If the opponents are fooled, so much the better. East can bid 3♠ showing signs of reluctantly taking the push.  Now if North can get the defence right, down 1, even undoubled, will result in a good score for NS ( 9 out of 12). He leads the ♣A and South signals for a diamond switch. The ELC auction has told the story, and the chance of getting the defence right has been greatly improved. Only one EW pair made 140 (♣A, ♦K, ♦A and a club ruff?)

We conclude from the results that the auctions were not informative enough for NS to prevail.  East players who try to bid accurately 2♠ then 3♠ are going to be punished, so most, but not all, players have learned not to bid in this pathetic manner. My 4♠ was a bit much, but my partner kindly commented that if I had bid 3♠, he would raise regardless of what 3♠ was supposed to convey. This is what I mean by a two-way bid: either it is a good save or it makes. By giving away less information, we improve our chances. Another way of getting a good score is if South over-reacts and bids 5♣ on the assumption that North for his double must hold 4+clubs. She knew her partner well enough not to attempt that.

Here is an example where the negative double can do damage to both sides.

 

Dealer: West Vul: NS	North ♠   J ♥   AQ93 ♦   J6 ♣   AKJ976
West ♠   AQ987 ♥   — ♦   A7532 ♣   853		East ♠   K ♥   T762 ♦   KT94 ♣   QT42
	South ♠   T65432 ♥   KJ854 ♦   Q8 ♣   —

John	North	Bob	South
1♠	2♣	Dbl	Pass
2♦	3♣	3♦	All Pass

 

I don’t like doubling on a bad 4-card major, but here it had the effect of keeping NS out of their heart fit; NS can make 140 in 3♥ and one made 620. Going down 1 was worth an average score. I had my chance to double for penalty when North, an aggressive type, raised himself unilaterally to 3♣. This is the situation where a penalty double can really pay off. There is a danger though: if South, seeing that 3♥ can hardly be worse, bids it, all will be well for NS. In practice my best tactic was to pass, and hope partner will allow us to defend. Scoring 300 in 3♣ undoubled will be a tied top. A balancing double is not advisable with the West hand – he knows they have a better heart fit. On the other hand if South takes out my double to 3♥, we can always get to diamonds at the 4-level and still make the same average score that we achieved without having any chance at doubling for a huge score. At IMPs scoring I think East should double and live with the consequences.

The point here is that if the opponents are in a bad contract, it may not be necessary to double for penalty allowing for an escape to a better spot. We often see writers adopt an attitude that one must punish the opponents severely in order to achieve a big swing on the board, but that is an approach that applies more to Teams than Matchpoints, and even then it may not be the best strategy. One example of this approach is the penalty double applied to overcalls of 1NT. It must produce a big swing occasionally, or players wouldn’t still be using it, but I can’t remember many occasions where it has worked either for or against me. One thing appears certain: it doesn’t deter players from making silly bids against 1NT, so the occasions for penalties are there, but they are not accessible with the double-for-penalty approach.

A better approach is the negative double after 1NT is overcalled. A player passes the overcall with values in that suit, but doubles negatively when he can expect partner to pass or double cooperatively any escape. Strictly on the basis of frequency, negative doubles are superior. Of course, if you can’t double for penalty and partner passes, your side may have missed a big score, but the loss is only a potential loss; on the actual result there may be a small swing either way – annoying but not critical.

Marshall Miles has some ideas on the subject of doubles of overcalls of 1NT, which he expressed in his work, Bridge at the Top, Book 1. After Partner’s 1NT is overcalled with 2♥, he suggests one should double on this hand: ♠ K42 ♥ Q97 ♦ K54 ♣ 8432.  One can classify this double as one showing cards, but less than the normal requirement for insisting on game, and flat with 7-9 HCP. Miles calls this an ‘optional penalty double’. I don’t like it, as it risks a game swing against a part score. There is no evidence here that the overcaller is in real trouble. It would be better to double with ♠ K432 ♥ 97 ♦ K54 ♣ 8432. Opener can pull to either black suit, but if he wants to pass for penalty there is scope for that option: ♠ A76 ♥ KJ84 ♦ AJ2 ♣ Q65,  a 7=6=6=7 division of sides. Opener can rely on there not being an 8-card fit in spades. We would not double on this hand with a suit worthless for defence: ♠ K43 ♥ 97 ♦ KQ3 ♣ 87432, a 6=6=6=8 division. One other point: if responder has a fistful of hearts, it may not be a tragedy to play in 2♥ undoubled when there is no game available, although it could be an opportunity missed.

There are now many popular methods of entering the auction over 1NT, and players do so with little fear or reservation. They prefer methods that introduce uncertainty, so lack specificity. DONT is one such method: showing the suit named, and a higher suit. With 2♣ there are 3 unknown suits, with 2♦ there are 2 unknown suits, so a negative double will be much more frequent than a penalty double in these cases. Also, some play that 2♣ shows ‘a single-suited hand’, which is a misdescription, as I have seen it bid with 5-4-3-1 shape. Nonetheless one doesn’t want to double 2♣ to show clubs, as this is premature – you’d rather double 3♣, wouldn’t you? So on some hands you can afford to pass and await developments, but with others it is better to double negatively, saying ‘I can’t double clubs, but I may be able to double another suit or support it, as the case may be.’

A defect of methods that require advancer to bid is that responder gets 2 chances to bid –  he can always pass and await developments being pretty well assured of a second chance to make his presence felt. One of the most dangerous situations for the overcaller is when he has a good hand, as in the following deal from a computer test of Lebensohl.

 

Dealer: North Vul: None	North ♠   AK ♥   KT65 ♦   QJ94 ♣   K96
West ♠   QJ532 ♥   943 ♦   8 ♣   7542		East ♠   T7 ♥   A8 ♦   AT7652 ♣   A83
	South ♠   9864 ♥   QJ72 ♦   K3 ♣   QJT

West	North	East	South
—	1NT	2♣*	Pass
2♦	Pass	Pass	Dbl
Pass	Pass	Pass

East has a fine hand for offense, so wants to get into the auction and stir the pot with a vague 2♣ ‘one-suited’ overcall. If South makes a negative double, West can pass to show tolerance for clubs and await developments. Opener may then bid 2♥, for a mediocre result. In such an auction the overcalling side has gained an advantage from the opening sides’ bidding. In the beginning South had the advantage, because he knows more about his partner’s hand than West knows of his partner’s hand.

If South has the patience to pass, West is obliged to bid 2♦ as his side may have a major suit fit. Over 2♦ South comes into the auction with a balancing double, and he doesn’t much care what North does at this point. North passes as there is no indication of a good heart fit – South might have doubled initially with a good offensive hand with the majors. The delayed double indicates values in clubs. The result of a pass is that East goes down 3 for a very bad score, and the defence can hardly go wrong. If West takes out to 2♠, he escapes for down 2, but there is also the possibility that North will now bid 3NT and make that. East would have done better to pass initially and defend a normal 2♥, making 3. If after East’s 2♣ bid, NS merely end up in 2♥, they have not taken advantage of a favorable situation which should have become evident from the competitive auction. The blame for that should rest largely with South.