Tiger Double

[Echognome]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=s9xhkqxxdq9xcat9x]133|100|Scoring: MP

1NT (12-14) - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠

3♠ - 4♠ - P - P - ?[/hv]

 

I read in an old Bridge World magazine article by Zia that called a speculative double a "tiger double".

 

RHO opens a weak NT and opponents climb into their spade game. Do you hit it on the way out?

[ArtK78]

I assume that this was an uncontested auction by the opponents.

 

If that is the case, then you are raising speculation to an art form. Do I double? No. Now, if you had a singleton spade, you might double, figuring partner for 4 spades. The (presumed) bad spade break combined with all of your potential tricks would make for a fine double.

 

Reminds me of one of Edgar Kaplan's reports many years ago of the team trials to determine one of America's international teams. The opponents had an uncontested auction that ended in 5♠ and a well known player doubled. The contract made without any problem. Kaplan's comments (and I paraphrase from memory):

 

South doubled, apparently on the theory that on any given hand it was unlikely that the opponents would make 11 tricks with spades as trump. Unluckily, this was one of those hands.

[han]

Let's see, they have an invitational auction to game, our hearts are nicely situated behind the 2H bidder. I don't do this often enough, it seems that this is a good situation for a speculative double. If you set them you get a top, if they make you get a bottom, so if you think that the chance of beating them is significantly more than 50% then doubling seems a good idea.

[EricK]

What does the 2♠ bid mean? I'm not sure this was necessarily an invitational auction.

[Echognome]

What does the 2♠ bid mean? I'm not sure this was necessarily an invitational auction.

I didn't ask, but it was invitational. I sensed from the 4♠ bidders maneurisms that it was. And.. it was. Don't read too deep into it. If it wasn't standard, it would have been alerted no?

[paulg]

I read in an old Bridge World magazine article by Zia that called a speculative double a "tiger double". 

Zia was presumably referring to Tiger Bridge, Jeremy Flint (and North), and I imagine a popular term in the London clubs that I cannot afford to play rubber bridge in.

[Guest Jlall]

I wouldn't hit this one, things split too nicely.

[Apollo81]

This is NOT a good situation for a spec double. Things are splitting well for your opps and your red high cards are soft and could possibly constitute 0 defensive tricks.

[Edmunte1]

This cannot be a speculative double. A tiger double, considering maybe that tigers risk a lot, possible

[whereagles]

Real life tigers are stealth hunters. They sneak in and attack. Lions, on the other hand, risk way more.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't double. But I only think it's inferior, not that terrible.

[cherdano]

I wouldn't double. But I only think it's inferior, not that terrible.

Not even Donn doubles. That says it all. <_<

[BillHiggin]

The idea of a double just because I hold most of our sides high cards is one that I find apalling.

On this sort of auction, the opponents have bid a close game - they will have about 24-25 HCP. Whatever strength I do not hold of the remaining 15 or so will be in partner's hand. If I double because I hold most of it, all I do is aid declarer in his task. But, if I know trumps are splitting poorly then I can freely double regardless of my strength. Whatever I do not have, my partner will hold. Double here with knowledge of the poor split (either very short or long holding in their trump suit). In fact, the weaker you are the more effective your double will be (and partner will not even entertain pulling it).

[Echognome]

I read in an old Bridge World magazine article by Zia that called a speculative double a "tiger double". 

Zia was presumably referring to Tiger Bridge, Jeremy Flint (and North), and I imagine a popular term in the London clubs that I cannot afford to play rubber bridge in.

If I recall correctly, this was indeed the reference.

[Echognome]

The idea of a double just because I hold most of our sides high cards is one that I find apalling.

On this sort of auction, the opponents have bid a close game - they will have about 24-25 HCP. Whatever strength I do not hold of the remaining 15 or so will be in partner's hand. If I double because I hold most of it, all I do is aid declarer in his task. But, if I know trumps are splitting poorly then I can freely double regardless of my strength. Whatever I do not have, my partner will hold. Double here with knowledge of the poor split (either very short or long holding in their trump suit). In fact, the weaker you are the more effective your double will be (and partner will not even entertain pulling it).

I don't think you understand at all. Do you think the question is "because I hold most of the defensive strength I should double?" If so, then you are sadly mistaken.

 

The question is: "The opponents have had an invitational auction to game. Do I think the cards lie badly enough for them that it makes sense to double?" Along with that I must consider how my double will affect the play of the contract.

 

I think that holding long or short trumps may be one factor, but if that's the only factor you ever consider, then you are short-sighting yourself. The location of where our cards lie is also important.

 

In regards to the current hand, I agree with others that it's not a double. But my point is trying to gauge what is enough to tip the scales and give it a shot. Should we consider doubling games a bit more often to put pressure on the opponents? Nothing comes with certainty.

 

It sounds like if our hand was changed simply to having only one trump, then the scales might have been tipped. These are some of the considerations. Also what might partner lead if we double? What should our double of a freely bid contract show? How might that shape the defense?

[pclayton]

Spec doubles need to show a profit. In a -1 / making scenario we are risking 5 IMPs to gain 2.

 

The real bonus from these doubles comes two ways:

 

1. You really do have them nailed. +100 turns into +300 or more.

 

2. Somehow your double causes declarer to misplay the hand and go down in a cold contract. I think the 'short in trumps' double (when they are in a known 8 card fit) when they are stretching for game is perhaps the best example of this x. This is the biggest way these doubles can gain IMO.

 

It can be very difficult as declarer to distinguish between 1 and 2.

 

Frequently, these situations are so murky that the opening lead is not affected.

 

The example hand is neither 1 nor 2.

[cherdano]

Regarding the reference to rubber bridge: Spec doubles are a lot more interesting at rubber bridge than at IMPs (and more interesting at IMPS than at MP).

Once +1100 makes up for many -790.

[Echognome]

Spec doubles need to show a profit. In a -1 / making scenario we are risking 5 IMPs to gain 2.

 

The real bonus from these doubles comes two ways:

 

1. You really do have them nailed. +100 turns into +300 or more.

 

2. Somehow your double causes declarer to misplay the hand and go down in a cold contract. I think the 'short in trumps' double (when they are in a known 8 card fit) when they are stretching for game is perhaps the best example of this x. This is the biggest way these doubles can gain IMO.

 

It can be very difficult as declarer to distinguish between 1 and 2.

 

Frequently, these situations are so murky that the opening lead is not affected.

 

The example hand is neither 1 nor 2.

Just one thing. The hand was at MP, so +200 rates to be a top. Likewise, if they make, it rates to be a bottom.

 

It's possible some will be in part-score, so that might affect your view as well.

[pclayton]

Regarding the reference to rubber bridge: Spec doubles are a lot more interesting at rubber bridge than at IMPs (and more interesting at IMPS than at MP).

Once +1100 makes up for many -790.

One +1100 (versus +400) --> +700 = 12 IMPs

 

equals

 

2.4 -790's (versus -620) --> -170 = 5 IMPs.

 

I haven't thought about the rubber bridge aspect.

 

At MPs, the double is a lot worse IMO. There is very little for you to gain if they stretched to poor game. Even a plus 100 will be beating all of the -110's and -140's your way. Your 85% board just became a 95% board.

 

If they happened to be in the field contract and wrap it, you've converted a 40% board to a zero.

 

1N - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠ - 4♠ isn't an impossible auction.

[han]

At MPs, the double is a lot worse IMO. There is very little for you to gain if they stretched to poor game. Even a plus 100 will be beating all of the -110's and -140's your way. Your 85% board just became a 95% board.

 

If they happened to be in the field contract and wrap it, you've converted a 40% board to a zero.

This is a nonsensical argument. I'll let you figure out why.

 

I don't mean to say that the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument cuts no wood (literal translation of a Dutch expression especially for Josh).

[jdonn]

This is a nonsensical argument. I'll let you figure out why.

 

I don't mean to say that the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument cuts no wood (literal translation of a Dutch expression especially for Josh).

As long as my name has been dropped, can you tell me why his argument is nonsensical, for my sake?

[awm]

It's matchpoints. If we assume that doubling doesn't effect whether declarer makes (only the score when he does or doesn't) and that no one is doubling the opponents in a partscore auction then our score against the pairs who defended a partial is already determined (if game makes, we lose to them regardless of whether we doubled game; if game fails, we beat them regardless of whether we doubled game).

 

So under the above assumptions, doubling (or not doubling) only effects our score relative to those who also defended a game contract. It doesn't matter where "the field" is getting on this hand.

 

Basically, if we think game is failing more than half the time, then we should double. Otherwise we should not double. It's that simple, unless doubling effects declarer's chance to make.

 

On this hand it seems like doubling will actually hurt declarer's chances of making, since he might assume the trumps are foul (and delay drawing trumps) or assume we have the trump honors (and finesse the wrong way). Obviously there are hands where declarer is just cold or just has no play, but it seems more likely that the double will induce declarer to go wrong, than that the double will induce declarer to go right.

[han]

If the rest of the field is in a making partscore then it really doesn't matter if you double. If they were going down then you would have had a top anyway, and if they make it then you would have had a bottom anyway.

 

Assuming that the double doesn't change the odds that they make it (not 100% clear I admit), you only have to compare the scores with the other pairs who are in game.

 

So if they make it more than 50% of the time then double will lower your expected MP score, and if they make it less than 50% of the time then double raises your expected MP score.

 

Of course, there may be a few other relevant contracts. For example, if other pairs are going down 800 in a partscore our way then double can cost but not gain. If other pairs misplay 3S for -1 then doubling can win but not lose. If some other pair is in 3NT+1 then doubling can only cost but if 3NT goes down 1 then doubling can only gain. Etc.

 

As Phil points out, 4S is likely either making or down 1. So at IMPs you would need better odds to double than at MPs, not the other way around.

 

edit: sorry Adam, I see you wrote the same. I'm a slow typer.

[han]

On this hand it seems like doubling will actually hurt declarer's chances of making, since he might assume the trumps are foul (and delay drawing trumps) or assume we have the trump honors (and finesse the wrong way). Obviously there are hands where declarer is just cold or just has no play, but it seems more likely that the double will induce declarer to go wrong, than that the double will induce declarer to go right.

Well, one could argue that declarer may pick up the diamond queen if we double (not clear). Also (this agrees with your argument) partner may lead a heart if we double which could be good. Double may also make weaker declarers more nervous.

 

All together it isn't clear I think.

[BillHiggin]

At MPs, the double is a lot worse IMO. There is very little for you to gain if they stretched to poor game. Even a plus 100 will be beating all of the -110's and -140's your way. Your 85% board just became a 95% board.

 

If they happened to be in the field contract and wrap it, you've converted a 40% board to a zero.

This is a nonsensical argument. I'll let you figure out why.

 

I don't mean to say that the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument cuts no wood (literal translation of a Dutch expression especially for Josh).

Assume that double does not alter the chances of the contract succeeding.

Let a be the number of other tables that stop short of game.

Let b be the number of other tables that bid game and do not get doubled.

Let c be the number of other tables that bid game and do get doubled.

 

If they score 9 tricks then your score is a+b/2 if you do not double or a+b+c/2 if you do. Your gain is (b+c)/2 by doubling.

If they score 10 tricks then your score is b/2+c if you do not double or c/2 if you do. Your risk is (b+c)/2 by doubling.

Therefore, your risk to gain is equal - double when you estimate the odds of their success at less than 50%.

 

When your double leads declarer to a line of play that works when normal lines fail, you lose big by doubling.

 

When your double guides partner to a winning defense (or leads declarer to a losing line), you win big by doubling.

 

Does that "cut wood"?