[mgoetze]

---

Is doubling worth it at IMPs, game all?

[SteveMoe]

I stay off, fearing 1) I might not have more than 4 defensive tricks here, and 2) I might drive them to their ♥ fit. I gain 7 when right and lose 12 when wrong. I don't think I have a 63% chance of success here.

[steve2005]

I'd say no for reasons Steve gave.
Also, what is your style for opening 2♦? For many could be really weak then your not even close. For others (like people using the original Precision) a weak 2 is nearly an opener. Even then too risky at imps.

[mgoetze]

 steve2005, on 2015-September-06, 06:09, said:

Also, what is your style for opening 2♦? For many could be really weak then your not even close. For others (like people using the original Precision) a weak 2 is nearly an opener.

I was playing with an expert with whom I play maybe twice a year, so no discussion of that. But you'll note he was in 2nd seat vulnerable...

[MrAce]

 mgoetze, on 2015-September-05, 18:49, said:

---

Is doubling worth it at IMPs, game all?

Michael, at imps I see it this way "I was about to play 2♠ and would probably score anywhere between -100 to +170, We are likely going to set 3♦ and get +100 or +200 and maybe -110 if we slip. I see nothing attractive for double other than if the state of the match tells me we need a lot of imps."

[Cyberyeti]

Give partner AQJ10xx and out, do you want to double ? no, it might go off but it might make an overtrick. Unless SotM dictates rolling the dice, don't go there.

[gszes]

I am somewhat torn between 3s and x (pass a distant 3rd) and eventually settled for 3s because the reward side is massively greater than x and the risk is significantly minimized. I do not fear x because If the opps can figure out to run to hearts (after you invited game in hearts) quit showing them your cards. The problem with the current bidding is that partner is no longer a participant because they have no clue you have spade fit. You could easily be void for all they know and have 3d easily handled so they will almost never pull with a weak defensive hand. You two must open some horrific weak 2 bids vul to not consider inviting game with your collection. 2s is not an invite it merely states that you have no desire for game if p has spades. Even if p is near the top of their weak 2 (unless they have AQJTxx) they should not move over 2s since you could easily have a singleton or void.

3s = 9 x = 6 p = 4

[BillPatch]

 gszes, on 2015-September-06, 11:05, said:

I am somewhat torn between 3s and x (pass a distant 3rd) and eventually settled for 3s because the reward side is massively greater than x and the risk is significantly minimized. I do not fear x because If the opps can figure out to run to hearts (after you invited game in hearts) quit showing them your cards. The problem with the current bidding is that partner is no longer a participant because they have no clue you have spade fit. You could easily be void for all they know and have 3d easily handled so they will almost never pull with a weak defensive hand. You two must open some horrific weak 2 bids vul to not consider inviting game with your collection. 2s is not an invite it merely states that you have no desire for game if p has spades. Even if p is near the top of their weak 2 (unless they have AQJTxx) they should not move over 2s since you could easily have a singleton or void.

3s = 9 x = 6 p = 4

Two reasons I like the pass: we tend to preempt rather light at our club, even if at times the pass is not the optimal IMPs percentage bid for that particular deal, if the opponents find they must play their overcalls they will learn not to intervene so often at this vulnerability.

[wanoff]

If partner is so weak that we can't make 4♠ then I'd pass. Be more interested with better diamond intermediates.
However, I'd have inquired with this lot, playing it as less than the rule of 20.

[mgoetze]

Ah, hm. This originally occured at matchpoints, actually, where I considered it a "WTP, Double." I was curious whether double would also be correct at IMPs, but lost in translation to IMPs was that I would of course bid 2NT rather than 2♠ initially.

[ggwhiz]

 mgoetze, on 2015-September-06, 13:22, said:

but lost in translation to IMPs was that I would of course bid 2NT rather than 2♠ initially.

A red 2nd chair bid would get 2nt from me at mp's too. Is it really a good idea to bastardize your style between imps and mp's?

[jogs]

By imps, do you really mean swiss teams imps converted to VP?

If they make this, this board should win them the match. If they make this because they played the diamonds carefully because you alerted them to a 4-1 split that would be sicking. If they go down one, the double is a 3 imp gain. They need to go down two of more before the double is clear.