From: boyiny@minkowski.mit.edu (Professor Who?)
Subject: Re: What is so terrible about doubling offshape?
Summary: A rebuttal...
Keywords: Double
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:27:01 GMT

Bob Silverman's usual, this time directed at me...  Since we all know what
Bob thinks of my bidding theory, it is probably better for Bob to avoid
reading what follows for the sake of his blood pressure:

[About that 4-4-1-4 19 count over the 1H opening.]
>>Why is everyone so afraid of offshape doubles? .... Bad things may happen. 
>>...lose big perhaps--...  but I consider pass bordering on the criminal
>>no matter how many experts do it.
>Noone is afraid of making offshape doubles. There are SYSTEMS that
>use them. But if you are going to make a **takeout** double, then you
>MUST have support for unbid suits.

Tell that to any expert who does "equal level conversion"--- Kit Woolsey,
Marty Bergen, Steve Robinson perhaps.  There _are_ tournament report hands
that I have seen in which their partner misjudged for a big loss.

>Did it occur to you that experts play the way they do because long
>experience has shown that this is what works? Nah! of course not.

Experts play the way they do mostly because they've been taught that way,
or because it is the fashion, and for any other reason that people stick
with "common" methods, and for the additional reason that they can outplay
and outdefend the fish by half a trick a hand in pair games and need be in
better contracts less.  [Me, being rather less able in that department,
prefer to do more in the bidding.  If you want to argue about this, Bob, go
take it up with Edgar Kaplan, whose excellent magazine I am sure you also
subscribe to-- he said it, I didn't.]

>Noone has suggested pass on the given hand. 1S and 1NT are both
>reasonable. But a double is ridiculous. You can't handle a diamond
>response from partner. Being willing to "lose big perhaps" some of
>the time is just plain losing bridge because it is unnecessary.

Bridge is a probabilistic game.  Everything is only determined to the point
of likelihoods until you see all four hands.  If you will show me a BOREL
simulation that demonstrates double to lose imps (or MPs) against pass in a
non-trivial fashion, Bob, perhaps I'd be more inclined to listen-- you'll
be surprised with the ease I accept my own errors in judgment.  But saying
that taking (big) risks is wrong because you can play it "safe" is
nonsensical, because risks are relative-- Low of Total Tricks users often
have the doubled high partscore wrapped around them, yet they do it anyway
because it shows a net gain (at least according to them).

>Your attitude is foolish. Experts play the way they do because 
>it works. Saying that you refuse to do something no matter how many
>experts do it is silly. 

See above-- shall I tell old Edgar that he should give up weak no-trumps
because 90% of the US bridge scene doesn't like it?  Should I tell you to
give up Roman Club since no one besides you (and perhaps me, I guess) knows
it in the States?  Unlike marching to a band, sometimes the many _can_ be
out of step with the few when science is being discussed.

>I would also like to finally ask why you consider pass criminal?
>The posted hand had mostly DEFENSIVE values AGAINST a heart contract.
>On its own it had a minimum of 5 defensive tricks against hearts.
>Your claiming that a pass is criminal shows a strong lack of hand
>evaluation skils.

I think that a pass is suicidal because love all is the worst score for
what is at best a marginal trap pass.  The hand is so strong (at least
HCP-wise) that 1H may very well become the final contract!  Since the
opponents are not vulnerable, the defense will need to come to at least 8
tricks in 1H to beat a making 1S/2C--- not likely, is it?  Whatever you may
think about double (and you left us in no doubt, Bob) you have to admit
that it gains when you strike a black suit fit, which is not all that
unlikely, but Pass only gains over 1NT exactly when 1H and 1N both go down
and there is no fit-- bloody unlikely, so pass is a "zero bid", a bid
clearly inferior to 1NT, and thus should never be taken into consideration!

Oh yes, and my planned action if partner responds 2D over my double.  I
plan to pass(!) since partner is likely to have five (lots of people, if
not most, respond 1S with 3-3-4-3 or such) and I will merely be back where
the 1NT bidders are.  [Think about it, with that 1-2-6-4, you'd try to get
to diamonds-- probably three-- over a no-trump overcall wouldn't you?]