DAILY BRIDGE CLUB

Two good players asked me to critique today’s auction. They had bid a slam with two all-but-certain losers.

“We play ‘two-overone,’” South told me.

So North’s two clubs was game-forcing; he could bid only two spades next, saving room. But North’s bidding implied interest in big things, so though South had a minimum, he felt obliged to bid three diamonds. Then North felt obliged to cue-bid four clubs; for all he knew, South’s hand was stronger.

The “felt obliged” style continued with more cue bids, though neither player was sure of his partner’s strength. Finally, North signed off at five spades, but South went on.

“South should pass five spades,” I said. “But your system’s approach to slam bidding is murky. In ‘Standard,’ North would jump to three spades, forcing, over two hearts. South would be discouraged by his singleton club and minimum values, and would sign off at game.”

“By the way,” South said, “I made the slam.”

South won the first diamond with the ace and cashed the K-A of trumps. He took the ace of clubs, ruffed a club, led a heart to the queen and ruffed a club. South next cashed the A-K of hearts and ruffed his last heart in dummy, He took the king of diamonds and led dummy’s last club at the 12th trick.

East was helpless. Whatever he did, South’s last trump would score to land the slam.

Maybe two-over-one is a great system after all.