mfa1010

Heh, it is a little unrealistic scenario. I suppose that it would quickly be revealed why declarer thought he would be down one (likely he just thought an ace was missing) and we would then give him all the tricks. If declarer is stating or indicating that he is about to do something that is worse than careless or inferior he will be bound by that. Here declarer is indicating that he is not going to regard the 6th spade as a trick. Then he is bound by that.

I tend to mean that passing 4♠ is not a LA. The comments so far seem to support this, as nobody has yet said that they would actually have passed themselves. Pass is only a LA if a significant percentage of players actually would have chosen pass in practice (and even more would consider doing it).

We don't need to consider squeezes. Declarer gave up after T2 and settled to cash out for down 1. Only if all normal lines of cashing out leads to his being in hand at T13 with last spade should we give him the contract. Normal lines includes (normal) bad lines. Playing as I stated is a normal but unsuccesful line, and we only need to find one of those to rule him down 1.

Takeout. But we have to double with 18-19 bal w/o stopper also, as well as on many other strong hands with no good alternative.

5NT. Yes I know how horrible a bid that is.

Must avoid card playing mistakes like that. Dummy is dead and west has nothing but convenient exit cards and still he opens the critical suit. Avoiding easy mistakes is so crucial. I don't particularly mind north's 2♠. It has upsides but not in a layout as the present one. South's 3♠ is strange with so strong diamonds. At mps I would double, probably also at imps. North would have to run from this obviously with nothing at all and a stiff diamond. I think that 3♦ would have gone down anyway though.

What would 4♣ mean if lebensohl applies? Almost forcing, or...? (2♥)-X-(p)-4♣ would be forcing, right? The right value bid here without lebensohl would be 5♣, but it would be nice to be able to bid 4♣ to facilitate slam bidding.

Down 1. When declarer thinks his last spade is a loser, it is 'normal play' to keep the entry to dummy as long as possible and hope for a miracle in clubs (or hearts). Ultimately the ending will be something like: Dummy: ♦A, ♣x Declarer: ♦J, ♠x. Still thinking that the spade doesn't cash, he plays diamonds to dummy and concedes the last trick in clubs. Declarer's claim was 12 tricks, and he has ♠AKQJT, ♥AK, ♦AKQ, ♣AK so any ruling of down more than one would be absurd. If dummy had had ♦Ax instead there would be no way to cash his 12 winners without ending in hand. Therefore declarer would have got all 13 in that case. It is not 'normal play' with a suit such as AKQJTx to suddenly exit small when we are aware that the small one is a loser. So all 'normal' lines would give 13 tricks and 13 he would get.

Ultimately, if 2NT shows: -, JTx, QT9xx, KTxxx then pass to 3NT is obviously a LA, so it is quite fruitless to discuss this further when we are in the dark about NS's methods and what S thought they were playing. South's hand is pretty horrible for 3NT though. Spade void as declarer, only 5 clubs and no A/K on the side. Partner needs a very specific hand if we should be able to take 9 tricks in 3NT but not make 5♣.

We need more. TD should aks NS questions.

Mine is 3♣. With 2254, I could bid 2NT on ♠Qx, 3♦ on a very good 5card suit or 3♥ on a strong doubleton.

I don't see why we should go ahead and miss completely normal 3NTs with 26-28 hcps. 2♦ is not (or should not be, maybe it is there the problem lies) an effort to improve the partscore with just diamonds and nothing. Partner indicates a hope for game, and with this much stuff in comparison with what I might hold, I'm not close to considering pass. 3NT often makes outside the diamond suit, if he has values and a bad suit.

2NT. I don't really see the alternative.

With lowish heart spots the value of leading a doubleton club is greatly diminished. And there is the risk of declarer running away with trumps and clubs.

:)

And the 13th card?

Pass again over 2♠. Penalty doubling would be very random. The layout could be: Partner Ax, 98, xxxx, AKQJT North ♥HHHH6 and we have 3NT making thanks to ♥7. That would be fun, but actually playing for it pretty crazy. :)

To comment sensibly on a case like this we need to know what TD established as facts about NS's methods. A few -possibly random- remarks: 1. If south intended 2NT as a limit+ raise in clubs then I don't think passing 3NT is a LA. 2. If EW are misinformed about 2NT then I think east is damaged when he doubled 5♣. South's 4♣ indicated a non-normal natural 2NT, but a void is pretty extreme. I'm inclined to follow TD, or perhaps give a weighted score between 5♣ and 5♣X if allowed. 3. If south felt that his partner's explanation was wrong he should have corrected before the lead. Then TD would have given west the option of changing his last pass. 5♠ seems to make if north doesn't find a diamond shift, otherwise it is down one. But the diamond shift is pretty obvious though. 5♠X-1 is also in the picture as a ruling.

Pass. I think this is going with the odds.

Pass. With this misfit the primary concern is to escape the hand with a plus score.

lol. please.

I agree.

Same as Fluffy.

In my world something weird is happening. 3♦ was not forcing and now partner leaps to slam, even though 3♥ doesn't promise anything except a heart suit?! I'm not going to make a blind raise to 7♦.

I don't know. We have a Danish bridge encyclopedia from 2002 but it doesn't mention a transition. In Denmark Foreningernes Turnering is branded as the oldest tournament in the world, but that need obviously not be true. If you have a special interest in these things I can probably connect you to the editor of our encyclopedia. He has been organizer of the tournament for at least 30 years.