http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-2598534062-1556136118

Our defence to 1NT was DONT as I had agreed to play partner's profile. With 5-4 in the majors and such a weak hand I considered an overcall of 2  to be too dangerous and also flawed.  Another popular defence to 1N as used by iacers is cappelletti 2  which is also flawed in that partner cannot know the best contract with equal length in the majors. 

The very simple Landy 2 is ideally suited to cope with 5-4 in the majors.  Partner with equal length will bid 2  .  Note that 5-4 is 6 times more likely than 5-5. The table that got a 100% score played in the inferior contract of 2  and went 1 off.   

So this is a plug for the use of the Landy defence by iac ers.  If you really want to go to town then adopt Multilandy against a strong no trump.  Then you can overcall with all suitable 5-4 combinations except minors. 
5M4m overcall 2M (use with caution)
4M5m overcall double (use with caution)
54M overcall 2  . (use with abandon nv)
6M overcall 2  and partner bids 2  pass or correct or 2  pass or correct with 3 cards in hearts.  Higher level bids need agreement

   

Thoughts on the Masse auction;
(a) showing 6+  s I have an issue:  Opener could have 1435 distribution.  Even with 12-14 points few would decide to rebid 1NT and with a little stronger but too light for a reverse you are forced to rebid 2 with 5 cards.  However after opener bids 3 this is corrected. 

I would not bank on partner having 4 card club support although it looks likely.  The most pessimistic interpretation of responders's bidding is having a holding like:
  AKJ10x    A    QJ95    Q53.  This hand looks to have very good chances of making at least 12 tricks.  So with a thorough understanding that:
(i) 4  is not Gerber......... !  Only joking!  That 4 is a slam try and this turns the earlier 3 bid into a control bid.
(ii) 4 is kickback and not cueing the K (What are the rules for when 4 is kickback and not a cue?)
this is a brilliant auction.   

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-2568068875-1554926518

This hand generated a lively discussion about forcing bids.  Hoki maintained that the sequence 1  - 1 -2 -2 is not forcing in his book.  Also the sequence 1 -1 -2  -4  is normally just an invitation to 5 and you would need a special agreement with your partner if you wanted 4  to be forcing.  Many saw  both these sequences to be forcing as I do.  Comments?

At my table West came in with a very unusual overcall of 2  announced as showing  and another suit.  That complicated the issue somewhat.  Assume as at other tables the auction was uncontested.  6 is an excellent contract.  How do you get there? 1  - 1 -2 -4  -4  - 4 -   Now what?  Or are there any other gadgets that would help you get to the club slam?
 

My first look at this hand and I thought it was a hand for the Vienna Coup.  You see that the     do not break and then play off the A in order to transfer the menace to the Q  in the South hand in order to effect a    squeeze.  Then I saw that this would not work if another  is played after winning the k  .  This cuts the  communication and so breaks up the potential squeeze. So what is left? 

Yes it looks like as Ken said.  Before playing out the  s, play a  early to the Q.  This gives you your 12th trick if s split badly provided the Q is with East.  If it isnt then you have done your best.   

I was defending this hand with the  suit and didn't see that I must cut the communications with another    when in with the J  .  Instead switched to a  .  and now if declarer effects the Vienna Coup by playing off his A  then hearts will squeeze me into letting go a  or the Q  .  Declarer did not spot this and went one off. 

The lesson is look for the simple.  Do not always think that when you see 11 tricks that a squeeze play is necessary to make the 12th. 
     

This hand came up in a spurs team match.  Non vul against vul partner South opened 2♠, assumed weak.  I passed without any doubts.  These were the 2 hands: 
North           ♠ J,               ♥ AK864, ♦ QJ52, ♣ Q93
South           ♠ AQ10832, ♥ J,          ♦  987,   ♣ KJ10           
 
The hand was unremarkable in that partner made 2♠ with an overtrick.  What I did notice was that partner opened 2♠ with an 11 count, and moreover two 10’s and a singleton too boot.  I have noticed that over on the American side of the pond the culture is to readily open 2♠ with 10 points and over on my side of the pond 10 points is usually considered too strong to open a weak 2.   What is interesting to me is that with a combined 24 points, 3NT is a decent contract by virtue of both the singleton Jacks pulling their weight.   Of course, even had I known that partner had max 11, I would still have passed 2♠. 

This is what Kantar says about responding to a 2♠ opening bid:
•   "With a singleton in partner's suit and no strong suit of your own, do not even think of bidding on unless you have 16+ HCP."

Yes, I agree entirely with that advice.  However, all you have to do is to give me 1 point more, say, ♦ KQ102 and 3NT is a contract that definitely should not be missed.

At the lighter end of opening with a weak 2, Larry Cohen says:
“I'd gladly open 2♠ with ♠ KJ10986, ♥ 4, ♦ 10874, ♣ 32”

So, the range appears to be from a good 4 to a bad 11.  This is an 8 point range and obviously too much for a 2NT response to sort out whether or not one should go to game.  Contrast this with a 1NT opening bid which has a range of 3 points and an invite bid is still considered worthwhile in order to sort 15-17 into 15 to poor 16 and good 16 to 17. 
The question that all players that open 2♠ with 10 or a bad 11 points should ask themselves is: “Do I want 2♠ to be a pre-empt, or to be a descriptive bid that is not a pre-empt?”  If I open 2♠ with 10 points then it is odds on that we own the hand. So, unless the range of this opening bid is narrow, we are not pre-empting the opponents we are pre-empting poor partner.  Incidentally, I recall that when the Dutch won the Bermuda Bowl a few years ago, at least one pair divided their weak major suit hands into 2 opening bids.  2♥/♠ very weak max 6 or 7, I believe, and 2♦ a multi bid with one of the options being a stronger hand with a 6 card major, maybe up to 10 points.

For me, along with I believe, the vast majority of players on my side of the pond, the range of a major suit weak 2, is 5-9 and if you have a 6 card suit and 10 points then open 1M.  Then there is no gap.  I hasten to add that all my arguments apply to opening in 1st and 2nd position.  In 3rd, of course and in 4th for that matter a different set of rules will apply. 

Back to the 2 hands in the match.  If I were sitting South then the bidding would go:
2/1    1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3NT
SA   1♠-2♥-2♠ - ? This is a toss-up between 2N and 3N.
In 2/1 make responder 1 point lighter then: 1♠-1NT-2♠-2NT-p.

Yes if West started with 4 spades to Q, then you can endplay him when he has  Qany,  Q any, by playing Ace and another  .  If he started with 3 then you make a 4th spade. 

Fantastic work you have put into this Ken.  Instead of analysing this in terms of suit distribution, I would like to look at it in terms of the minor suit King position.

I list the 4 combinations and their a priori probabilities:
Line 1: Cash the third and run the 9.
Line 2. Cash 2 spades, then lead a small to the A, then Run Q  , (if South covers) over to J  , Trump to Q, A  discard Q 
Assume initially that trumps are 3-2
(a) North has both Kings  ............................24% ...............Line 1 succeeds Line 2 fails
(b) South has both kings  ............................24% ...............Line 1 fails    Line 2 succeeds provided  s not 7-1 Discount this as opps would have bid  s
(c) North has K  and South has K  ........26% ............... Line 1 fails   Line 2 succeeds provided A is a singleton (6.25%) Giving a total chance of 1.6%
(d) North has K  and South has K  ........ 26% ............... Line 1 succeeds, Line 2 succeeds provided  not 7-1 (discounted)

So Chance of Line 1 succeeding = 50% and chance of Line 2 succeeding = 51.6%,  This result is very similar to Ken's result.
I confess that it did not occur to me when I followed Line 1 that I could improve my chances by about 1% with Line 2. 

What if when you lead the 2nd trump you see them splitting 4-1?  How should the play change?  No time to look at that now