655321

3♦, second choice 1♦. Not pass.

Diamond lead from the KJ just seems wrong to me when partner is likely to be short. Don't expect -990 was worth any matchpoints, would -650 have been worth something?

The assumptions seem fair enough to me when the bidding has stayed low. But if the auction was something like (1♦) X (1♥) 5♣ we would know nothing about North's shape.

2♣, for some reason I don't expect to beat 1♥ by 2 tricks...

4♣

4♥, I want to make some effort with a 7-4 shape, and as an extra bonus KJT9 is pretty solid.

I think most people agree that playing opener's double as 'let's defend' is not a good idea. That wasn't your complaint though, you thought that responder shouldn't be raising with preemptive hands as well as 2344 13 counts. I think it is wrong to say that 'many others' and 'many of us' disagree with raising with a wide range of hands - after all that is one of the big strengths of playing limited openings.

Ah yes, I missed that.

With no information about the opponent's shapes, the reason you don't take a second finesse is just the simple vacant places calculation - i.e. if you play low to Q and K, then low toward the AT, RHO has 12 spaces, LHO has 11, so play for the drop. Not sure about any of these numbers, so I randomly picked this one. We are saying that we know 10 of RHO's cards (e.g. he has guaranteed exactly 5-5 in 2 suits) and we know 7 of LHO's cards? Then after low to the Queen and King, we would be playing low to the ten on the next round (LHO having 4 spaces compared to RHO's 2 spaces), so it would make sense to me to play low to ten, then low to queen (instead of low to queen). I haven't done the maths here so perhaps I am wrong, but on an initial glance this recommendation of low to queen doesn't look right to me.

Change your agreements. Perhaps you could start watching some top strong club pairs on Vugraph to see if they do anything different (for example, see if any of them play double by opener as showing interest in taking the push to the 5 level).

Hate 1♦ (you won't ever be able to bid hearts) and double (you only have 2 spades). Pass, 1♥ and 1NT are all plausible calls. I would probably bid 1♥.

OP has shown us just 2 hands for this ATB. I wonder what the comments would be if we knew all four hands. Would the passers be so critical of the horrendous result of -100 if the alternative were -140? Or are EW cold for game in a minor, if so passing throughout is not an obvious route to getting there. I think we can be pretty sure that EW do make 5♣ and/or 5♦, otherwise what would be the point of a post asking us to ATB for bidding a game and scoring -100 when the game doesn't make instead of defending a partscore for -140 or +100. Anyway, I think that double by East is completely routine, and passing instead would be bad. West has the interesting decision, and very reasonably tried 3NT. Perhaps 4♦ is a better bid, my guess is that it is not, but I don't know.

Allow me to recommend MsPetey to you as a very desirable partner.

I would always bid 2♥ (or 2♦ enquiry) with this hand. However I can understand the 3NT bidders, presumably the reason that these national class players (what is a national class player BTW??) want to bid 3NT is because they hope to cash 9 fast winners without needing to worry about a bunch of trump losers in a heart contract. Anyway, whether or not you agree with them, without doubt these national class players (?) who bid 3NT are fully cognizant that they will sometimes miss a 4-4 heart fit.

4♦, if I was not allowed to do this I would double.

If they don't duck smoothly you can break even with the low to 9, low to 8 line. If they do duck smoothly you lose an extra trick.

Assign the blame? Obviously South gets no blame at all, even if you want him to pass 4♠ for some strange reason, he will still score -420 instead of +600. So if there is any blame to assign it must go to North, and I would give North some blame. Firstly, he could have made things easy by bidding 2♦. I understand if you hate 2♦ because North does have a 4333 heap of rubbish. OTOH when the auction gets competitive it is good to raise when you have a chance, and for that reason I wouldn't criticize 2♦, in fact I even like it (sorry!). Then the double, this is a takeout double with short spades, it is not a random 'extra values' double with a balanced 18 count. If partner has a good hand with no spades (maybe 1 spade on a bad day), and diamonds is his longest suit, bidding is more likely to be right. This is a different auction from one where East opens 4♠ and South doubles, in that situation South's hand is much less known, his diamond length is unknown, etc. 5♦ won't always make, and neither will 4♠, still it feels wrong to me for North, with no spade cards, and knowing of the big diamond fit, to pass throughout.

Agree with whom?

I am a 5♠ bidder (the fifth spade, the diamond void, and partner not doubling 5♦), but I would never criticize double, you do have an Ace-King, partner has opened the bidding and you avoid bidding 5/5. Having said that, I do believe you are dreaming if you think 800 is on the menu after partner didn't double 5♦.

There have been a number of threads on this sort of 'Convention Disruption' issue. Here is one from around a year ago: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=33160

Trump

1) Pass 2) Pass 3) 4NT It is not obvious to me whether we are the partner of the 4♥ bidder or the 4♠ bidder on (2), but I pass anyway - would have bid 4♠ if partner is the 4♠ bidder.

I would always bid 2♥ here. Not saying it is impossible to go for a number, but I don't think it is at all close. Both sides have around half the deck, and we have some shape, I would much rather play in my 6 card suit than defend 1NT.

Yes, 2♥ is natural, thought that part would be unanimous until I saw some responses in this thread.

Pass seems obvious on (1) and (3), and 3♠ looks normal to me on (4). (2) is interesting, I have played in a partnership where we bid 2♠ with this sort of hand. Without agreements you could probably get away with any of 2♦, 2♥, 2NT and 3♣. The fact that this is an 11 count which some people might pass is not relevant, obviously the same rebid problem is possible if you add one or two HCPs.