Barry M: So you agre with Yuan. I prsume the person asking the question wants to learn the ‘best’ treatment rather than wanting to know what a pickup partner might think

Yuan: Ok, that's your “guess”. It may not be everybody's guess. My guess is that the majority response will be (1), and that the author wants (3).
My point is I'd prefer to know rather than guess. I'm not sure what your point is.

In ‘normal’ Precision 1N absolutely denies 4-card ♠. Because the minor suit shape has so many possibilities, some use an asking bid over 1N to determine the exact shape. Including 4-card ♠ also would be ‘too much’. Though I doubt if that is anybody's reason for ‘1N denies 4-card ♠’. Precision has always been that way.

In “2/1”, or any ‘Standard’ structure, you would have opened 1♣, not 1♦.

For the umpteenth time, I find myself wishing that such questions be made more clearly. There are at least three possibilities:

1) What you play
2) What you think is ‘Standard’
3) What you think is ‘best’

Which one of these does the author want to know? If the answer is not clear in his mind then he needs to get the answer first - or ask multiple questions.

I want to correct what I said before when I must have been drunk. If I were Director, and declarer claimed as he did in the 6-card ending he's just down one. If he believes everything is a winner, who is to to say in which order he would play his ‘winners’?

And, if I were defending, I would ask declarer to state the order. If he ‘gets it right’, 10 tricks. If he gets it wrong (or impatiently says ‘what difference does it make’) then I call the Director.

My only excuse for my aberrant comment before is to plead confusion because of the mistakes in the original OP and comments. If declarer had NOT cashed the ♣AQ yet but just thought they were going to be good, then I'd stick with my ‘aberrant’ comment.

The timing of this article was, for me, coincidental because I was considering writing an article about what happened to me last week.

Playing in a Sectional KO, the bidding went P(1♥)-P(P), 1♠. The opponents now proceeded to bid 3♦-5♦, 6♦ which was cold. My partner's balance was questionable, so the hand was the subject of some discussion.
The opening bidder's hand (which should have been opened 2♣) was x, AKJxx, AK1098, AK.

Two days later, I was doing bidding practice on BBO. I clicked ‘Redeal’, and was amazed to be looking at 9, AKJ42, AK1098, AK.

The hand from the sectional was shuffled and dealt, so there was zero possibility of any ‘computer glitch’. And, sadly, I don't know what the three missing spots were from the Sectional, so the degree of this coincidence cannot be precisely quantified (I guess you could take an average - I know the spots I held.)

John L: If you've read all the comments on this thread, you will see they say that declarer actually played a club to the 9. So now he has 10 top tricks.
In the 6 card ending, dummy had AJxx, —, Q, 10 and declarer had KQx, —. 10xx, —. Declarer said ‘KQ of spades and dummy is good’.

If I were defending here, I would not call the Director. If I were directing and somebody DID call the Director, I would tell South he is ‘lucky’ to be getting 9 tricks after his blackout statement. But, even with the blackout. I still see the ♣10 as trick 13. But I'm willing to be convinced I am wrong.
I think if David Burn were the director the ruling would be down one or two - I'm not sure which. I've been disappointed not see a comment from David on this thread.

Steve B: Who the heck is this “Mike”?

“I asked this above, and I'll repeat it: Suppose both five clubs and four spades were failing, and North, after a slow double, found the winning pass. Would you allow that?”

Yes, I would allow that. There could be some general caveats - I won't go into that here.

Paul B: I agree it would be nice to know more. But, whatever we discover, we'll never be sure that North would not have passed an in-tempo double.

Either ruling here MAY be ‘unfair’ - depending on what North, in the alternate universe of an in-tempo double, would have done.

I strongly prefer to have the ‘inequity’ be the one that will deter players from future 'pass-then slow double- then bid in this type of situation.

John L: “Declarer thus making three. Apologies for confusion.
My take on declarer's statement on the number of tricks he hs suggests he takes them in that order. So he takes the spades before the diamond, then ”the clubs“ losing the last two tricks.”

Ok, I'm still confused. If declarer does as you say, didn't he make 4+3+1+2 for 10 tricks.

* * * * *

“MR: you may be suggesting that by mentioning the club jack first, he intends that order.”

My comment in this subthread didn't “suggest” anything. I merely corrected the comment of the OP author who said that IF declarer played a club early, that would be down one.
Then, it turned out that the author, in the OP, misdescribed the actual play. So, if declarer did as the OP author suggested it would be down only one.

Andy B: I felt, perhaps wrongly, that the author of the OP (and others) was (were) blaming anybody who said North's bid should be disallowed.

And my exzperience is that, generally, players whose bids are disallowed tend to be at least a bit upset, and looking for someone to blame. I was simply offering what I believe to be the most appropriate target.

“My opinion is that directors shouldn't be looking to find a way for the claimant to take an obscure line of play to go down.”

My opinion is that people who make bad claims, and are clearly in the process of having a mental meltdown, might have taken an “obscure” line of play.

Andy B: “If your partner pauses, bids RKCB, receives a response, then bids immediately, does that really tell you anything useful?”

I think it can. If partner's ‘fast’ bid is at the 6-level in a new suit that might be playable then there is an inference that it IS playable.

Also, if partner follows 4N with 5N I think there is some suggestion that his grand slam interest is less ‘solid’.

Having said that, it's far better in general to ‘plan’ your auction.

Tom A: My guess is that you pitched a spoade on the 3rd ♣ - not a ♦ from Jx

I also recommend those programs'. I think they explain the beginning of card play in a way that offers an opportunity for true understanding.
It's especially good for studious kids who have the ability to read patiently.

Mark R: No, can't recall right now. But it wasn't just one or two.

Ken R: That's the way it should be. But a surprising number of players (even world-class exoerts) play 1430 0r 0314.

* * * * *

Bruce E: “This finds the best contract of 4NT when opener has KQ in 3 suits, and is only unlucky if opener has KQJ in 2 suits and QJ in another suit, and the opponents manage to cash out.”

i did consider that, but I, for one, would prefer not to have that chance be ‘unlucky’. And really ‘unlucky’ would be KQJ + KQJ + K (or QJ tight, resulting in down maybe 4 or 5. I doubt if your teammates will be impressed.

“Similarly at matchpoints even if your long suit is spades instead of clubs.”

Sure, at matchpoints you can gamble if you want.

* * * * *

Michael K: “Why, oh why would anyone do that?”

That is how I feel. Yet I'm pretty sure there are a large number of pairs who do. I think their reasoning is it won't mastter and they want to keep the ‘same’ responsdes for consistency/ease of memory. Some of these players didn't grow up with 0/4 (some have barely heard of it).

They do get one small advantage - separating ‘2’ and 2 with ‘extras’. I've yet to see a hand where that helped in practice (though I guess it could be constructed).

I just don't think it's worth the risk of a 0/3 disaster. But I accept we are talking about small potatoes here. I've never seen that hand either. But I use my ‘example’ to explain to partner why we ‘should’ play 0/4…

“Making a claim does not cause you to lose your bridge playing ability. ”

True. But if this claim is evidence, there is something extremely suspect about the player's bridge ability - at least on this hand at the time it was played.

Ronald: Because THIS North, who passed over the direct 4♠ (when 5♣ is clearcut), might have passed again. WE vdon't know.

Maybe he wouldn't - and in that case he has my sympathies. But he should not be blaming the opponents for calling the Director, or the Director if he rules against him.
He should blame his partner for a protracted BIT in a tempo-sensitive situation. That BIT robbed North of the chance to corrct his earlier error and now show good judgment.

The reason it's so ‘clear’ to bid over the double is that it was also clear to bid before.

That is how I see it.