[AL78]

5 card majors, weak NT.

---

♠T lead was explained something like may be top of nothing or hold a higher honor (I can't remember the explanation exactly). I'm not sure I've got the play of the first tricks right, but it was definitely three rounds of spades. With eight tricks it looks like I have to generate a club trick through a finesse. Thinking South is marked with all (or nearly all) the outstanding HCP, and so holds the ♣K, I played a club to the ten. Wrong, South wins with the singleton jack and cashes two spades, one down. I didn't expect South to hold five spades as well as a heart suit. -3.33 instead of a moderate positive score.

Quote from North: "You could have bid 2♣ to show a two suiter".

[sfi]

You have 8 tricks and don't want the opponents to get in, so you do best to simply play a club to the queen. If it wins, you're home. If it loses and they don't cash enough spades to beat you, you can play a club to the ten next round. An immediate club to the 10 never makes 9 tricks when a club to the queen doesn't.

[morecharac]

 AL78, on 2021-April-09, 17:32, said:

Quote from North: "You could have bid 2♣ to show a two suiter".

Uh huh.

That would really test my ethics in regard to just up and leaving a game.

[nullve]

So North and South might have thought they were playing Multilandy and Cappelletti, respectively.

what were 2♦ and XX explained to you as? (By Noeth and South, respectively, if this was f2f bridge.)

[AL78]

 nullve, on 2021-April-10, 02:56, said:

So North and South might have thought they were playing Multilandy and Cappelletti, respectively.

what were 2♦ and XX explained to you as? (By Noeth and South, respectively, if this was f2f bridge.)

2♦ was explained as any single suiter, XX wasn't explained or alerted, so I made what I thought was the most logical bid at the time.

[Cyberyeti]

 AL78, on 2021-April-10, 03:13, said:

2♦ was explained as any single suiter, XX wasn't explained or alerted, so I made what I thought was the most logical bid at the time.

Hmm, weird situation. You would need to find out what their agreements actually were, you may have been damaged by the explanation, if for example their actual agreement was ASPTRO you would know S was likely to be 4-6 or more likely 5-6 in the majors and once he follows to a diamond you can play ♣A and lead up to the Q catering to anything except 4612 with Kx.

[AL78]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-April-10, 03:46, said:

Hmm, weird situation. You would need to find out what their agreements actually were, you may have been damaged by the explanation, if for example their actual agreement was ASPTRO you would know S was likely to be 4-6 or more likely 5-6 in the majors and once he follows to a diamond you can play ♣A and lead up to the Q catering to anything except 4612 with Kx.

I think South forgot they had the ability to show a two suiter in the majors so treated it as a one suiter, so I don't think I was damaged, the explanation of 2♦ was correct.

[pescetom]

 AL78, on 2021-April-10, 04:14, said:

I think South forgot they had the ability to show a two suiter in the majors so treated it as a one suiter, so I don't think I was damaged, the explanation of 2♦ was correct.

The only infraction I see is the lack of an alert on 2♦: but you say it was explained and correctly too, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to adjust just because South forgot he had an alternative agreement. I also agree you weren't damaged. 3NT makes and West could also double that reckless 3♥ for -1100.