This conundrum was written by Mark Horton and was originally published in the book Misbid these hands with me - you can find out all about it further down the page.
As bridge has evolved there has always been interest in unusual systems and conventions. Some, such as the multicolored 2♦, have found the test of time, while others perhaps have carried a government health warning. Playing in a friendly international match in Brighton, I pick up these cards as South, with both sides vulnerable:
♠93 ♥73 ♦QJ754 ♣AQ75
We are experimenting with some new-fangled opening bids that are designed to inconvenience the opponents. Here, I have the option of opening 2♠, promising 5–5 in either the majors or the minors and less than an opening bid. Although I am a club short, my honors are concentrated. I will be eager to see how the convention will work in practice, and I open 2♠.
West has nothing to say and my partner bids 3♠. That suggests that although he has some decent spade support, he will have a much better fit for one of the minors. I am about to bid 4♣ when I notice that East has joined in with a double.
We have not discussed this exact situation, but the double must give me additional possibilities. Passing would show I hold the majors and bidding 4♣ would show the minors. That leaves a redouble and 3NT. The latter should show longer clubs than diamonds so I redouble, trusting partner to realize I have longer diamonds than clubs. Unexpectedly, that ends the auction:
West leads the ♠5 and I anxiously await the arrival of the dummy:
I was right to be anxious. East proceeds to draw four rounds of trumps, West discarding the ♣2 and ♣3. East continues with the ♥AKQ10 and West overtakes the last of these and cashes the ♥8. East’s remaining trump takes the penalty up to −3400.
Post-Mortem
There are several lessons to be learned from this debacle. Although it is tempting to use a gadget, it is unwise to do it on hands that are flawed. South’s logic was impeccable, but it relied on the assumption that North would reason the same way. Nevertheless, North’s decision to pass was surprising. If partner held an exceptional major two-suiter, surely he would be happy to take his chances in 3♠ doubled.
In the other room East–West took ten tricks in 4♥. On the positive side, we joined the select group of those who have broken Burn’s Law of Total Trumps.
In 2007, Horton wrote Misplay These Hands with Me, a deliberate homage to Reese's classic, Play These Hands with Me. The difference was that the declarer in Horton's book always made an error, sometimes obvious, sometimes not so much. This successful book was the basis of a long-running column in the ACBL's Bridge Bulletin, a sequel in 2019, and earlier this year, Misdefend These Hands with Me. Now the same author turns to the topic of bidding, and once again gives the reader a chance to learn from someone else's mistakes. All the deals are taken from top-level play.
XX clearly meant "Partner do you have 13 cards?" Pass after XX clearly meant "No".
That would have been the moment to call the director to get any result canceled.
As a partner I'd find it quite annoying if partner promisses a minor or major two suiter with less then a opening, only to see he has a 14 card 13 HCP 2 1/2 suiter.
And I thought the problem was that South started with 14 cards, though had given the ace of spades to East by the time dummy went down.