Dear Bobby or any reader

On the question about Maximal Doubles, by Clearing Up, I read and re-read and still could not understand
the question and so not the answer.
I think the problem is I do not understand what are Maximal Doubles.
Can you provide an example of the question.

thanks

Dear Bobby or any reader

I have a little problem going from MP to IMP game. I do much better on MP games.

Is there a mind switch that changes gear when you are playing one type of game and the other type…

Thanks

hi Bobby

what is the address for sending questions to the Sunday questions

thanks

Hi Peter,

Question #1 on Maximal doubles:

When the opponents are competing against each other with touching suits (S&H, H&D, and D&C) and the bidding, for example goes around the table: 1S 2H 2S 3H if the 1S bidder now doubles it is artificial (not for penalties) but invites partner to bid game if he has more than he might have. However if instead of doubling he merely bids 3S then he is not inviting partner to bid more, only hoping to buy the hand at 3S’s or instead hoping to set 4Hs if they now bid it. Hence the word Maximal double, meaning bid game if you have a little extra.

Question #2:

Yes, there is a marked difference between matchpoint bridge (aka duplicate bridge) and IMPs usually played team vs. team (each with 4 players per team) with the loser KOed and the winner going further.

That difference is centered around the principle that IMPs features amount of gain (IOW, hoping to gain double digit numbers 10+ instead of just 1-3 IMPs) while matchpoints features frequency of gain (one overtrick sometimes makes a great deal of difference in the matchpoint result, sometimes a top if everyone else (at other tables are making one trick less). At IMPs accurate game and slam bidding takes on a great significance while at matchpoints, overtricks, contract trick or not, becomes more important to get high scores.

If anything while IMP bridge (or rubber which is similar to IMPs) concentrate on hoping to make one’s contract and not to worry much about overtricks, but at matchpoints (a more difficult game but also including a huge luck factor) is like trench warfare, the survival depending on every trick gathered as opposed to just bidding and playing well and insuring, if possible, your contracts when you become declarer.

My email address for the Sunday column is:
bobbywolff@mind spring.com.

And now you know! but only if I am giving good advice, which I hope I am.

The questions / answers provided here have given me, for one, a more complete grasp of what the Maximal Double conveys to Partner, i.e.something extra… more likely extra points than extra shape.

As a minor side point, I find that there are perhaps too many names for Doubles. In this case, does the term “maximal” mean anything more than the specific auction context, i.e. they bid one under our agreed suit.
Is it in effect just a special case of Card-showing / Optional Double, so Partner, even if never having heard the term,should know the meaning ?
Thanks

Hi Clarksburg,

Some poet once asked, “What’s in a name”? and then went off in a romantic mood.

Names for bridge conventions only emphasize the author’s name (and that being far less than 100% accurate) and sometimes referring to a similar better known artificial bid like Redwood, Super Gerber and two way Stayman or should we say Rapee?

However when 5NT is correctly interpreted as a Grand Slam force it, of course suggests that it would become one, if the askee has two of the three top honors in the known trump suit.

However a forcing club, forcing 1NT response, 2 over 1 game force, at least hint at the result of using it, but make no explanation of how or why. Then we get to generic terms, Multi, Acol, Neopolitan, Astro, Mosquito, Standard something or other, which leads us to Snapdragon, Maximal and even dark sounding names like Suction and Fertilizer, aka the bid which shows a Yarborough when playing a strong pass system.

Looking on the brighter side, Maximal probably only meant trying to differentiate between competitive and an invitation, but, no doubt, unless one is firmly ensconced in the bridge world, many of these terms seems like 2 cave men conversing thousands of years ago.

On the mistaken information question, I have played that if partner fails to alert or gives a bad answer to a bid question, I stay silent and do not modify future bids. If we get the contract, before defense leads I stop them and give correct info.

However, I am unsure of what to do if I am on defense. Declarer should know the info, but I do not want to give extra info to partner. Example, his other partner plays weak no trump and he gave the wrong answer about my opening 1 nt point range.

Hi Bryan,

Although this may sound a trace overkill or instead, misinformed, but my take is this.

When on defense, the defender upon hearing a wrong explanation from partner about the meaning of your bid, should almost never speak up for fear of helping his own defense rather than informing his opponents of what might be important information that he was definitely entitled to know.

However, rather than just sitting there and ponder, rise to the occasion and, if possible try and decide what you, if, that declarer, want to know, under the approximately same situation this declarer was now placed. Then as honestly as possible (if for no other reason than to mollify your opponent’s dilemma) take the initiative by updating your opponent. Even if asking your partner to leave the table was possible*, but trying to jump through hoops to restore the status quo.

The above could and would be thought of by me is the definition of Active Ethics, a definition which sometimes appears off limits to many to just define, much less achieve.

*Often the idea of sending partner away could alert him, at the very least, of what you were going to privately disclose, away from his earshot and, if so, that needs to be under consideration. However, your intentions might help you, by a thoughtful TD, to reduce a possible penalty he might otherwise inflict.