ERIC KOKISH is generally considered the 'expert's journalist'. He is a bridge professional, writer, teacher and coach. His high spots as a player were a silver medal in the World Open Pairs in 1978 and then another silver medal in the 1995 Bermuda Bowl in Beijing . He specializes in detailed analytical reports of major championships and is a regular contributor, particularly on bidding theory, to many bridge magazines worldwide. Another aspect of his work is to coach and prepare national teams for international events and in that respect he has travelled widely. Teams that he has coached that have gone on to exceed the world's expectations include: China , the Netherlands , Iceland and Indonesia . Eric is in his mid fifties and married to Beverly Kraft with whom he lives in Montreal . They have a son, Matthew, who was born in 1987 and already seems to have big league potential in baseball or basketball. He also has a golden retriever named Lady. In what little spare time he has he enjoys collecting rock 'n roll records and baseball cards. He also enjoys cooking – is that what keeps him cuddly?

BRIDGE has changed a great deal in recent years. Not only have new 'destructive^' systems gained in popularity, but also the basic philosophy of the game has taken a definite turn toward the aggressive. Undisciplined pre-empts, overcalls on four-card suits, pathetically weak jump raises: these are simply a few of the highlights. With more ways to get into the bidding, there are more contested auctions, and there is a high premium for each side to make the winning final decision. Should we bid on or have we done enough? If we do sell out, should we double?

In the field of competitive bidding, there has been considerable progress. We find ourselves turning to analytical techniques (the evolution of deal generators and the resurgence of the Law of Total Tricks, to name two) to help us solve delicate bidding problems where not so long ago we might have relied solely on our intuition and experience. Can we do more?

West might well bid Two Hearts at his first turn, but many players would double. North's pre-emptive jump to Three Spades is typical of the way the game is played today. When the bidding reverts to West, he has paid the price for his first bid. He is forced to guess what to do and he guesses to bid Four Hearts, his spade length suggesting that East will be short there and thus potentially fairly long in hearts.

Now it is quite logical and indeed almost routine for the bidding to end with three passes at this point. North-South have pushed their opponents around. When South passed Three Spades, he judged for the partnership that game was both intrinsically unlikely and an unsound tactical venture. It is bad bridge for North or South to bid Four Spades now, in effect allowing West a 'free shot'. Significantly often, West will have done the wrong thing. It is far more attractive tactically to double for penalties in this sort of situation, making East-West pay for their four-level stab.

In practice, however, a pure 'I know I've got them' double is very unlikely to occur or to be correct even if it does occur (the opponents might easily have a better spot and realise it). The actual South hand-type — fairly good offence and promising defence — will occur with far greater frequency. Should South take further action with this 'two-way' hand, or should he simply let it go?

Even if both sides own a nine-card fit (and East-West could easily have found only a seven- or eight-card fit in hearts), there is a good chance that nine tricks will be the limit for each side in this scenario. The mathematics of the game suggest that South will gain by taking further action. If Four Hearts is cold, North-South should sacrifice; if Four Hearts is going down, North-South should double.

South thinks it is correct for his side to take further action, but he wishes to leave the final decision between declaring and defending to North. I suggest that a double should carry this specific message.

In Lay-out (1), North has maximum defence. In fact, he'd like to make the same sort of double over Four Hearts himself, but it is dangerous to act at the four level when the partnership may own just eight combined trumps (the price of the 'modern' approach). North is pleased to pass South's 'one for the road' double, however, and a diamond lead nets a quick +300. Four Spades doubled would, in all likelihood, have gone one down, -100. That's a difference of9 IMPs for the winning choice between two 'busy' decisions. Passing out Four Hearts would have yielded +100; better than bidding Four Spades, but appreciably worse than doubling.

In Lay-out (2), North's orientation is more offensive than defensive. He is closer to bidding than passing. The result would depend on the opposing lie and the defence, but on balance it would be right to bid Four Spades.

SOME other examples:

SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST

1NT¹   NO     2 ♥     NO

NO     2♠        Pass   Pass

     ?

    15-17

South holds:

♠   Axxx

♥ Axxx

♦ AJx

♣Kx

South should not pass. Indeed, many would have acted directly over Two Hearts. While South has a fine hand for hearts, he also has good defence against a spade contract. West has gambled. Should South bid 'one for the road' and concede that West has done the right thing? Or should he solicit the opinion of his partner, who might not have been in a position to act directly over Two Spades because he lacked the security of a proven fit? North might hold:

♠ J10x

♥Jxxxx

♦ Qx

♣ Jxx

Now Three Hearts figures to be at least one down while Two Spades might be two or three down off the top. A double allows North to pass when it is best to do so. Give North:

♠ x

♥ QJ10xx

♦ Q10xx

♣ xxx

and he will gladly remove the two-way double (sure, he might have bid directly over Two Spades).

SOUTH   WEST    NORTH    EAST   

  1♠            NO           2♠          4♥

  ?

Give South:

♠  A K J x x

♥  K x x

  ¨  A J x 

   ♣  Q x

He has the strength to bid Four Spades but there is a mild defensive (vs offensive) bias. He'd like to double, but not if North will feel obliged to pass with:

♠  Q x x x

♥  x

♦  Q x x

  ♣ J 10 x x x

If the double says, 'I could bid Four Spades, but I have a relatively balanced hand and perhaps it would be better to defend at this level,' North will pass with:

♠ x x x

♥ J x

♦ K x x x

♣ K x x x

but remove to Four Spades with the first hand. Mission accomplished

 

It follows that when you're sure you wish to defend in such situations, you must pass.

If you do adopt these doubles, you will need to define them carefully. If you do not do your preparation, you will be better off doubling for penalty all the time!

The competitive jungle is filled with crazies, most of them ruthless. Fortify yourself when you go out to face them. Make the 'one for the road' a double.

My BOLS bridge tip is:-

If you are considering `unusual' further action on a competitive deal,
double to announce that you'd like some help from partner, whose assets might
be only imperfectly defined by his previous bidding.