DAILY BRIDGE CLUB

Bidding theorists are constantly coming up with ways to treat bids that seem to defy logical interpretation. Suppose you open one heart, your partner responds 1NT, you bid two clubs and he bids two spades. What does he have?

Partner cannot have a spade suit, having failed to respond one spade. If he had a decent hand with club support, he could have raised to three clubs. Logically, his two spades shows a hand that your second bid greatly improved.

Advances in bidding theory are fine, but I often see a different kind of “wasted” bid. When South bid 1NT in today’s deal, showing a balanced minimum hand, North jumped to three clubs and converted South’s 3NT to four hearts. That painted a useful picture of his hand — for West, the opening leader, who started with a trump. East followed low to keep communication.

Declarer next led a diamond to his king. West took the ace and led a second trump, and East won and led his last trump. South couldn’t ruff any diamonds in dummy, and when neither black suit treated him well, he lost three more tricks. Down two.

When South bid 1NT, North knew the best contract was surely four hearts, so when North showed his clubs, he was showing them only to the defenders. If instead North simply jumps to four hearts, West won’t have a clear roadmap. He may still find a trump lead, but if instead he leads either black suit, South will be able to ruff a diamond in dummy, set up the fifth spade and make his game.