As in my earlier 'Unbelievable Contracts' the deal described below is not fiction, but comes from real play. And as I wrote in those earlier articles: every bridge player can fill a book with his own funny, beautiful or ridiculous deals... if only he makes a note of them directly after play. But since few players actually do so, many potentially good stories are being lost.

Once again I wasn't playing with my regular partner (obviously playing with non-regular partners creates the most exciting deals...), when I was dealt the following hand as South:

With such a distribution 9 honour points should be sufficient for game. So bidding 3♦ or 2/3♠ wouldn't do, those bids are not forcing.
4♠ seems to be the most logical game, since partner will usually have four spades (another reason why bidding 3♦ is wrong: we could miss the spade fit). Should I bid a straightforward 4♠ then?
Not so fast. What if this happens to be that rare occasion where he does not have four spades? (True, he will have extra strength then, but that doesn't make 4♠ in a 4-3 fit a good contract, certainly not with this four card spade suit).
Should I start by bidding 2♥ then, a cue bid, and bid spades afterwards? No idea what partner will think of that. Perhaps he will think that I am trying for 6♠. Or that I have three spades only and suggest playing in a 4-3 fit spades (his four card suit...)? If he rejected that idea, we could easily and stupidly miss a 4-4 fit...
On top of that he might say: 'Why don't you just bid 4♠ at once, instead of all this hanky-panky?'

So in the end I decided to jump to 4♠ after all. It was not the end of the bidding:

 ¹ One key card

Obviously there were two key cards out. I hoped there wasn't a third loser... I began to regret my 4♠ bid.
West led the ♣A.

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

West continued with the ♣Q.
On the assumption that the ♠K was with West and that I could finesse for it often enough, I counted no more losers in South. On closer inspection there were two more assumptions necessary: that I could set up the diamonds and could get to them...
From North's hand things looked a bit better (though I certainly couldn't set up the heart suit): I could in principle ruff the club return, pitch a heart on the second top diamond and finesse in hearts and spades (though not in that order). Here too I had to assume that I could finesse for the ♠K often enough. This way I would lose only the ♣A and North's fifth heart. Or, counting tricks: I would make six tricks in the side suits (the ♦AK, three hearts thanks to the finesse and the ♣K), North's four trumps and a club ruff in hand.

So I ruffed the ♣Q and played the ♠5. West contributed the ♠10 and hopefully (it looked like West had the bare ♠K10, so I would have to finesse only once) I inserted the ♠Q.
To my horror East won with the ♠K. I couldn't believe it: West had opened on an 11 count and East had the only face card he shouldn't have.
East returned a club, on which I discarded a diamond; West contributed the ♣J and dummy was on lead with the ♣K.
Prospects were dark. My plan to try losing nothing more than North's fifth heart was useless, since I had lost the ♠K and had to make the remainder of the tricks. Still I had to play the hand from dummy. After all, West's ♠10 showed East had four trumps and in my hand the trump suit had already been shortened. I had to pitch two of North's hearts now, on the diamond ♦K and the ♦J.
Counting tricks, I now had to aim for the following eleven tricks: the ♣K, three trump tricks in North, one club ruff in South, three hearts and three diamonds.
Setting op the ♦J by ruffing was not an option since North had to draw three more rounds of trumps. Playing East for three diamonds to the ♦Q was pointless: East couldn't have another honour card after having turned up with the ♠K. So it looked like West's ♦Q would have to come down under the ♦AK.

Then I saw the solution: in view of his singleton spade, West was sure to have at least five hearts. If he had the guarded ♦Q I could squeeze him in the red suits... provided I safeguarded my third heart trick first. After all, that suit was in danger of being blocked. Suppose I now drew all trumps, crossed in diamonds and played the ♥J. West, having kept both red queens guarded and knowing the full layout by now, would cover with the ♥Q, thus blocking the suit: I would have to win with the ♥A and cross to the ♥10, meaning the ♥K would be a dead duck.
So it had to be done differently: I crossed to the ♠9 (West pitching the ♣10) and continued with the innocent looking ♥10. As I hoped, West ducked. Now I was home: I drew East's last two trumps. On the first one West could miss a heart, on the second I threw a diamond from hand. The situation was now, West still having to find a discard (red cards have been played):

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

West had only wrong cards to play. Whatever he did, I could try the red suits from the top, it didn't matter which suit first. If after the first red ace-king that suit turned out to be guarded by West, I could be sure the second one was established.
Having lost only the ♣A and the ♠K, I had made my 5♠ contract.

PS1: Had West started with a diamond less, he would not have been squeezed. I would have made three easy diamond tricks anyway, due to the fact I played them from the top. In the layout shown West would have had an extra club or heart.
PS2: Perhaps I should have finessed in hearts (by letting the ♥10 ride) in trick three already, since in my original plan too I would have had communication/blockage problems.
PS3: East has defended poorly. If he hadn't won the first spade trick with the ♠K but had ducked smoothly instead (usually the best defence when holding four trumps), I would certainly have laid down the ♠A at the next trick (an argument for West to falsecard the ♠10 from ♠K10x...). After which the contract would have been sunk. A diamond switch by East, when he was on lead with the ♠K, would have been killing too.

At all other tables South went down one in 4♠. Let's just say that the other NS pairs had bid better than we and that the EW-players had defended better than our opponents...