hatchett

It is 12 tricks but you have to assume someone has doubled 2♣ on a T high suit.

Ulven's point is a good one, partner may intend to go to slam whatever we do over 4NT, so we must bid in that context.

5♦. Worth an effort at grand.

4♠.... Doesn't look a very good hand to slam for me. My 5 card suit is weak and the ♥J and ♦Q are likely waste paper.

Say RHO isn't so kind to ruff the the third ♣ if he started with KJx diamond. If after the third club cashes you play a ♦ RHO rises and plays a third round, now you only have 11 tricks (1♠, 1♠ruff, 1♥, 4♦ and 4♣). Say instead you continue ♠A, spade ruff, ♥ruff, ♠ruff, now you go off if RHO started with 3532, since he gets to ditch a spade on the third round of ♣s. The still other variations to the play. If the second ♠ruff stands up you could now try another ♣, but this fails if RHO started with 5422 including Kx ♦ he ruffs and gives partner a trump promotion by playing a fourth round of ♠s. If you try the fourth round of ♣s earlier you give RHO another chance to discard another ♠, and you fail if he started with 4432. A very complex hand.

I can't say I'm crazy about 3C on a J high suit, and a semi-balanced hand with a high honor in every other suit. 1NT looks a much more promising start.

3♦. 3NT might be off if partner has a stiff or void spade, if they win the first trick and switch to spades. 5♣ must surely be making, it's going to be hard to bid 6♣ if it's right but 5♣ on the next round might give partner a clue as to our hand type.

♦ has to be right. Is LHO bdding like someone with 2 ♠ losers ? No. Could partner have a diamond void. Yes.

5♠. A jump to 4♠ should show a good hand. Something like AKJxxxx Ax x Kxx offers very good play in 5♠.

I'd probably bid 4♦ at the table but it's hard to object to 5♦

4♥, No reason why partner can't have a hand that makes slam a lay down despite his limited opening.

North knew South had 7 clubs from the bidding so he was hardly going to ruff, and secondly, even if didn't know how many clubs south had from the bidding, if declarer had 4 Clubs tricks then he had thirteen on top after one ♦ ruff. The chance of North ruffing the ♣9 is zero.

On the actual lie, 7♥ is down on a club lead, because it takes out an entry prematurely to ruff 2 ♦s. The most likely line on a ♣ lead is to play for trumps 3-2. So ♣K, ♦A, ♦ ruff, ♣ ruff, ♦ ruff with ace, ♥9, overtaking in hand, to try and draw trumps planning to score, 2♠, 5♥, 1♦+2 ruffs, and 3♣s. This fails on the actual hand obviously. I believe when the board was played Cohler won the ♣lead, played ♦A, ruffed a ♦ and then played ♠A. He must have been convinced that South had some shape for his 4♣ bid and he now played ♣A and Q. North would have defeated the contract if he had ruffed either of these but he didn't and the contract made when South now ran the ♥9 from dummy, North played low but it didn't matter if he covered at this stage since declarer could score the ♥7 with a tump coup.

I agree with Jdonn, I would pass with this hand whatever my ♦s were

Agree. Easy 1♥

7♦ to stop them bidding 7♠ over 7♥

I'll join the above club and say obvious double as well.

why don't you play 1♥-3♠ as any specified singleton and 3NT asks and 1♥-3NT as ♠Void , then you can distinguish the ♠ voids and singletons.

I would pass, I think 2♠ is too commital to strain when I have a weak main suit and a 5 card side suit, but it could work out if it's their hand.

I'd check your analysis, on the first hand 3 rounds of diamonds beats the hand two tricks (2 diamonds, 3 hearts and 1 club), but if we take a club ruff it's only one off. On the second hand both defence lead to two off, not one off

I would bid 1NT, somehow things never seem to go the way you want if you pass in this type of situation.

Obvious pass.

I disagree with winning the ♦K. I would win the ♦A to tell partner I have nothing in clubs, Cash the ♦ K, ♥ K and play the ♦J

4♦ sounds like partner is 2-4 in my two suits.

Double on the first round was obvious, I think 5♥ on the next round was equally obvious. Now it's 6♦ for me.