[dickiegera]

---

Makes 5D who should have bid better and how should it been bid

[dickiegera]

dickiegera, on 2023-January-07, 17:57, said:

---

Makes 5D who should have bid better and how should it been bid



Sorry I do not know any more on how to post the bidding

when I wish to show a bid of 2Spades how?



HELP

[LBengtsson]

Difficult to bid 5♦ imo without some mechanism such as 2NT by North as a relay. In the absence of this, think North has to bid 3NT over West's 3♠ here. Possibly you can get to 5♦ this way, but it is a push imo.

Maybe North should bid 3NT instead of 3♦ on the 1st round, but still difficult to reach 5♦ this way also imo

[mw64ahw]

South's X shows opening values and at least 3 cards in each suit. The modified losing trick count for this bid should be at least 7.5.

North has a 5 card suit a MLTC of 7.5 with the right-sided K♠ and tenace shading it lower.

So 19-7.5-7.5=4 suggests a 4-level contract is possible so I bid 4♦.

Now South with 5.5 MLTC courtesy of the void knows that the partnership is in slam territory given the 4♦ bid i.e. 19-7.5-5.5 = 6 and with 5-card support is happy to bid on.

4♥ is a keycarding ask here or 4♠ to show the void expecting to end in 5♦ with North's single keycard.

[smerriman]

mw64ahw, on 2023-January-08, 01:35, said:

The modified loosing trick count for this bid should be at least 7.5.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but just FYI, it's losing, not loosing. Hate correcting spelling online, but it's in every single one of your posts, and it drives me a little bit more crazy each time

[DavidKok]

North is easily worth a game force over the takeout double. I would bid 3♦ instead of double with the South hand. West was really kind not to raise with 4-card support. The losing trick stuff is completely wrong here.

[mw64ahw]

smerriman, on 2023-January-08, 01:53, said:

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but just FYI, it's losing, not loosing. Hate correcting spelling online, but it's in every single one of your posts, and it drives me a little bit more crazy each time

�� I dislike poor spelling too from the English speaking so have corrected. And I do know the correct spelling so will try and concentrate a bit more when posting

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-08, 02:37, said:

North is easily worth a game force over the takeout double. I would bid 3♦ instead of double with the South hand. West was really kind not to raise with 4-card support. The losing trick stuff is completely wrong here.

a) I disagree that North's hand is worth a GF over a X if I X with an opening hand and less than 13
b) MLTC works very well for me when combined with a number of other factors and does so in multiple situations. It does so here again.
c) South has a clear takeout shape so why not show it

[DavidKok]

I think you've missed the mark on all three counts, but I'm not sure that it's productive to discuss it in more detail. I wouldn't want to hijack the thread.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-08, 03:47, said:

I think you've missed the mark on all three counts, but I'm not sure that it's productive to discuss it in more detail. I wouldn't want to hijack the thread.

I think it would be interesting to post a poll on bridgewinners. I can see some North's bidding 3NT over the X, but doubt that many wouldn't X.

[Cyberyeti]

5♦ is far from laydown, give E ♠AQJ10xx (quite likely when his partner hasn't raised with 4) you're not making this if he leads a heart, and doesn't have ♣Q.

I'm not sure if I'd double or bid 3♦, but we play lebensohl over the double.

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-January-08, 04:25, said:

5♦ is far from laydown, give E ♠AQJ10xx (quite likely when his partner hasn't raised with 4) you're not making this if he leads a heart, and doesn't have ♣Q.

I'm not sure if I'd double or bid 3♦, but we play lebensohl over the double.

Lebensol works well here, but use I 2NT as 11-13 as Balanced with stoppers so don't have that luxury.