Pict

Seems a pity if opener can't bid 2S after the responder reverse.

Still club Ace for me. Well done to the successful diamond leaders. Declarer had a club void, dummy had KQ, partner had diamond Q. Are there any other possible layouts?

I've been reluctant to take part in the guess. However, in real life I would play the ten, and if asked to justify it, then I would say that East is not passing us into vulnerable game without a clear trick (not QQQ). East has the heart Ace.

You bid too much.

I would lead a club. Haven't been able to work out why I shouldn't.

And the OP said North 'unknown'.

For me a key part of the OP was that the opponent is an expert. I took that seriously. Do expert opponents like to tell you how to play the hand.

I'd pass. If you compete partner is keen to bid game. In a way it can be even worse after 2D rather than 3D.

It feels a bit odd, but maybe I just bid one spade and see what happens.

Fine - I 'agree' with the idea of taking the diamond King.

Perhaps more to the point is whether any of you would have ducked the spade, putting a sure contract on the floor.

I think some hands are part scores.

It would have been good to have the answers to various questions, as you suggest. I have to say that forced to decide just on the information in the OP, I would not contradict the TD. There seems no reason at all for opener to be anxious about their hand, so I would conclude it was genuine uncertainty about the 4NT and a successful guess. The thinking time of responder may have given opener time to make a decision, but does not seem to me to have suggested the outcome. I don't, by the way, think that the suggested 'impossibility' of pass is relevant - that would not protect against a judgement of use of UI.

Still looks like 1NT to me. 5422 counterbalanced by so much in the short suits. If I'd agreed not to bid NT on this type of hand, it would be 2H.

OK guys. When dummy goes down, you need to decide if oppo is just very crazy or extremely crazy. Some of the percentages could reach vanishing point. I still like my technical line, but can easily relate to the finesse.

I would not like to trust West to hold a singleton heart rather than Jx. But it doesn't cost to play the Jack of diamonds. If West wins and plays a spade, North wins the Ace and it's already decision time in hearts - I'll play for 2-3. If East wins the diamond I can win a second diamond, and ruff a small diamond. If East shows out, I'll play West for a singleton heart.

'Traditionally' penalty oriented, but it's not clear that has ever worked very well. I'd still assume that on the basis that partner can otherwise find something to say (usually), or can pass for the moment.

1NT - for me this is the best description. The Hearts aren't so wonderful that I can't risk missing out on them.

I don't think I can make a reliable deduction about West's trump holding, so I would run the Queen planning to finesse again.

The downsides of responding weak majors on weak hands at MPs probably most affect people playing 4cM and weak NT. They are more at risk of having to play in 2m instead of 1NT when opener is not strong, for example. I suspect that serious Pairs competitors are now more likely to move to 5cM strong NT systems if they are worried, rather than change bidding style at Pairs.

I'd bid 2D first time. The shape and auction is a bit weird for NT. If I'd bid 1NT first I'd bid 2D next or pass of partner doubled 2C. I'd be pleased then I'd bid 1NT.

Partner can't bid (can he?) with something like: Kx, xxx, KQxxx,Axx (or even the spade Ace instead of King?) Seems a good probability for an IMPs game.

If we go back to the original post then I think that if your methods have South pass then North doubles. If you read the opponents delay wrong then ... yes there is the stuff about deliberately/possibly misleading. In this case I would not fix it for you because it is way to close.

I agree that it is up to the TD to decide what is rational, but I don't think he should be deciding what declarer's intention might or might not have been. And this is confirmed by both Endicott and Kooijman: +=+ My understanding is that the decision to be made is whether, objectively examined, the proposed line of play fails to conform to the principles of reason and logic. Under the laws the judgement is one for the Director to make, and one for the appeals committee subsequently if the Director's decision is questioned. Law 70E1 does not say "....would be irrational for the player concerned. " It concerns itself with irrationality in absolute terms. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And Ton's response was "Amen!" indicating that he concurred. This suggests that rationality is decided without considering "the player concerned", so that dburn's view that what is rational for Zia might not be rational for Zizi (with apologies for those that do not know the charming lady) is not supported by at least two members of the WBLFC. Interesting but elusive argument. Your eminent supporters can only come into play after the TD has heard and understood (including intentions/implications) the claim. If I am the TD and conclude as a matter of fact and judgment, rather than Law that the intention of declarer was clear, then the consequences follow whatever our ancient authorities say.

Apologies if I misunderstood your argument. I was perhaps distracted by the fact that the case in this thread clearly is about an implausible assertion by West, rather than a self serving statement by West (IMO - have to be careful to add these things). It looks as if we agree - though we might no doubt differ on how often an appeal statement should be described as self serving rather than implausible.