W/EW		♠	Q 3
		♥	3
		♦	A K 8 6 4 2
		♣	9 7 6 2
♠	8 6			♠	A 10 9 5
♥	A K Q 10 9 8 6 4			♥	J 7
♦	Q 3			♦	J 7
♣	5			♣	A K Q 10 4
		♠	K J 7 4 2
		♥	5 2
		♦	10 9 5
		♣	J 8 3

On west's 4♥ opening north, being not vulnerable against vulnerable opponents, felt it a good idea to show both minors with 4NT. Absurd of course, with a fine six card suit in diamonds and four small clubs. If (!) north should bid at all, 5♦ is the obvious choice.
The Lebanese east player, Bedros, tried a double, having 'some' strength in one of north's suits.
Now south went astray. The double had removed his bidding obligation (4NT forced him to choose between north's suits): after all north now was bound to bid again. South's 5♣ therefore now showed real preference for clubs: more clubs than diamonds! (Having equal length in the minors south should have passed to leave the decision to north).
When east, hardly believing what happened, doubled, north still could have tried 5♦ (inconsequent, surely, but who cares...) but he believed in the club fit.
East undoubtedly will have had some trouble to suppress a smile...

West led ♥A and on seeing dummy cleverly switched to his singleton trump. East pulled all of NS's trumps and still had a heart to play for west: thirteen tricks to EW. 5♣ doubled, defeated by eleven tricks! In those days the score was 2100 down (nowadays it would have been 2900).
Thailand lost 19 IMP because on the other table the Thai EW-pair went one down in 6♥ (west 4♥ - east 6♥). North simply cashed the first two diamond tricks.
Who would not have liked to hear 'our' Thai NS-pair explain to their team mates: 'Um..., we sacrificed against 4♥ with 5♣. Unlucky, eleven down...'