This hand was presented by Michael Berkowitz in the column of Larry Cohen. These are experts I consider on the "aggressive side. Both vulnerable, the bidding was
South West North East 1d Pass 2d pass 2NT Pass 3NT pass
(North's 2d was an inverted minor raise.)
The hands were:
North s: A93 h: KQJ d: QJ74 c: T83 South s: JT72 h: A75 d: K832 c: A6
Berkowitz characterized this as a "normal 3NT with 13 opposite 12." But North has a 4-3-3-3 distribution, so shouldn't "12" really be 11, and "25" really be 24?
Sources such as this give N-S only a 37% of making 3NT with only 24 points. This includes hands with "24" that are really 23, not hands that are "25" really 24. Making this adjustment, the chances of success are about 40%. Using IMPS scoring, that's good enough, when vulnerable.
But Berkowitz/Cohen didn't make a qualifier for when one is non vulnerable. Should such a qualifier have been made? Am I right to feel misled by an assurance that this hand is a solid, rather than borderline, 3NT bid when "25" points is more like 24 because of the 4-3-3-3 distribution?