[dkham]

Playing cross-IMPs in a good standard field. You overcall 2♦ then have a choice on the second round. Are you selling out?

---

[paulg]

I would have doubled on the first round, trusting that my extra values will protect me from the lack of a fourth heart. Overcalling at the two level and then doubling is more typical of a (1363) hand.

But having overcalled I have to double now as my hand is a lot stronger than partner will expect.

[LBengtsson]

paulg, on 2020-December-27, 05:58, said:

I would have doubled on the first round, trusting that my extra values will protect me from the lack of a fourth heart. Overcalling at the two level and then doubling is more typical of a (1363) hand.

But having overcalled I have to double now as my hand is a lot stronger than partner will expect.

Agree

[nige1]

dkham 'Playing cross-IMPs in a good standard field. You overcall 2♦ then have a choice on the second round. Are you selling out?'
++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree:
1. Double = T/O.
2. Pass.

---

[PhilG007]

dkham, on 2020-December-27, 04:24, said:

Playing cross-IMPs in a good standard field. You overcall 2♦ then have a choice on the second round. Are you selling out?

---

It might seem chicken but I would pass 2♠ It is true I have 15 hcp but both opponents have entered the auction.
Somebody is marked with a very poor hand and all the indications point to that somebody being partner. Best to subside
and defend. . You have quick tricks after all.. Imagine your chagrin to stretch 3♦ and find partner with a Yarborough

[AL78]

PhilG007, on 2020-December-27, 16:05, said:

It might seem chicken but I would pass 2♠ It is true I have 15 hcp but both opponents have entered the auction.
Somebody is marked with a very poor hand and all the indications point to that somebody being partner. Best to subside
and defend. . You have quick tricks after all.. Imagine your chagrin to stretch 3♦ and find partner with a Yarborough

Partner won't have a yarborough, otherwise at least one of the opponents would have made a game try. Partner is marked with a rubbish hand though.

[TylerE]

As usual, when you are finding yourself stuck for a rebid, the real problem was your previous bid.

To join the chorus: X the first time.

Having made this bed, you must now lie in it with a pass. Double would show a lot more than this.

[dkham]

Thanks for those replies so far.

For those doubling first time, what do you do after (1♠)-x-(2♠) passed back round. Double again?

In this hand (and in general I reckon) you're in a better position if you overcall 2♦ first time.

[dkham]

Thanks for those replies so far.

For those doubling first time, what do you do after (1♠)-x-(2♠) passed back round. Double again?

In this hand (and in general I reckon) you're in a better position if you overcall 2♦ first time.

[paulg]

dkham, on 2020-December-29, 02:09, said:

Thanks for those replies so far.

For those doubling first time, what do you do after (1♠)-x-(2♠) passed back round. Double again?

In this hand (and in general I reckon) you're in a better position if you overcall 2♦ first time.

I would double again, but this is in the knowledge that partner will respond two no trump with two places to play which increases the chances of playing in diamonds when it is right.

I understand that overcalling 2♦ feels safer and it will always work well when partner has a fit, but you will miss other fits and find that strong opponents will frequently steal from you.

[eagles123]

X first time is clearly better than 2D imo.

[akwoo]

I think 2D the first time is clearly right, and X now - though at X-imps pass now isn't dreadful, especially if partner is someone who raises 2D fairly aggressively.

If X the first time, then I don't think I have enough to X now at X-imps given that we'll likely be playing in a 7 card fit. (After X, partner should bid over 2S with most hands with a 5 card suit.)

It's true that we'll more likely than not be down at any contract, but down 1 undoubled costs nothing, down 1 doubled costs 2 or 3 IMPs, while the double part score swing is worth 6.

[TylerE]

akwoo, on 2020-December-30, 02:42, said:

I think 2D the first time is clearly right, and X now -

The problem is, if you do that this on this hand, you will find partner doesn't beleive you when you hold x AKxx AKQxx Kxx.

Don't be the boy who cried wolf. This hand is NOT that good. Not even CLOSE to that good.

[Cyberyeti]

TylerE, on 2020-December-30, 16:33, said:

The problem is, if you do that this on this hand, you will find partner doesn't beleive you when you hold x AKxx AKQxx Kxx.

Don't be the boy who cried wolf. This hand is NOT that good. Not even CLOSE to that good.

If you're going to bid 2♦ then X on the actual hand, then you double first on that one.

[cherdano]

paulg, on 2020-December-27, 05:58, said:

I would have doubled on the first round, trusting that my extra values will protect me from the lack of a fourth heart. Overcalling at the two level and then doubling is more typical of a (1363) hand.

I don't understand this argument. We are off by one card from the most typical shape for this sequence - isn't that a good thing? Sounds more accurate to me than X-X-3D over 2N , which would typically be a slightly stronger hand with 2443 or thereabouts.

[paulg]

cherdano, on 2021-January-01, 08:29, said:

I don't understand this argument. We are off by one card from the most typical shape for this sequence - isn't that a good thing? Sounds more accurate to me than X-X-3D over 2N , which would typically be a slightly stronger hand with 2443 or thereabouts.

It is a little random, but my experience is that partner over-evaluates ♦Qx when he thinks I'm likely to have six. We will cope because we have a nice hand but I feel we'll be better placed with an initial double if there is no further opposition bidding.

[mikeh]

TylerE, on 2020-December-30, 16:33, said:

The problem is, if you do that this on this hand, you will find partner doesn't beleive you when you hold x AKxx AKQxx Kxx.

Don't be the boy who cried wolf. This hand is NOT that good. Not even CLOSE to that good.

If you overcall on that 1=4=5=3 19 count, partner should not believe that hand is possible, nor should he.

Imagine partner with Qxxx xxxxx xx Ax and having to hope opener is going to reopen, else we miss a great game

On the actual hand, it’s close between double initially, 2D initially then pas and 2D initially and double.

Had I doubled initially, I think (in my partnerships) I pass again.

Now, that’s because of our methods. Partner could have doubled 2S, responsive, on hands where, after a 2D overcall, he’d have to pass. Yes, a double by him is still responsive but he can’t count on me having support for more than diamonds...I could easily be 6322.

Also, if I double, he would have lebensohl available over 2S, using 2N to show a desire to compete, in a 5+ suit, but with no constructive intent. His pass, then, would suggest either weakness or a mediocre flattish hand, or both.

[dkham]

Thanks for all the comments. It seems people are in favour of doubling the second time round, though lots wanted to double the first time (I've not been convinced of that).

Just for fun, here is the actual hand:

Board 23

You can see that getting to 3♦ is a winner (however you get there).