Dubious Logic

More on no-trumps v suits

Since I raised the subject of no-trumps versus major-suit contracts, I've been spotting examples. Only last week in a local game, this hand occurred:

On the page, my one no-trump looks a little heavy and I might have doubled and bid no-trumps later. But partner saved me and showed hearts; I super-accepted, showing four of the suit and a maximum point–count, then he made me choose between no-trumps and the suit. It reminded me of a hand back in 2001, from the Four Stars at Brighton:

After you open a 14-16 no-trump, partner again shows five hearts but this time in a slam-invitational sequence. Do you go to slam and which do you aim at, 6NT or 6♥?

The common denominator here is the lack of aces in the balanced hand. Aces are wonderful cards (and more valuable than their measly four points), one of their attractions is that you do not need to lose the lead to score a trick. When you lack them, you often need a trump suit to control the play. The rub is that four of a major necessitates taking an extra trick and it is a fine balancing act. The first example:

Despite 4-0 trumps there were no problems in four hearts and (as this was pairs) only nine tricks in no-trumps. In fact, had east another small club instead of the spade queen, three no-trumps would be down but four hearts unaffected.

On the second deal, partner held ♠K5 ♥AJ1065 ♦A42 ♣A102 and you have twelve tricks (one spade, five hearts, one diamond and five clubs) but a diamond lead from king-queen establishes a trick for the defence to score when they gain the lead with the spade ace. In six no-trump that is a problem but in hearts (or clubs) you can discard diamonds on clubs (or hearts) and only then knock out the spade ace.

Published Saturday 14.Feb.2009