In bidding No-trump with three guarded suits, it does not matter which is unprotected. For example, the minimum strength of a No-trumper composed of one face card more than the average is an Ace in one suit; King, Knave, in another; and Queen, Knave, in a third. This hand would be a No-trumper, regardless of whether the suit void of strength happened to be Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs, or Spades.
The above-described method of determining when the hand sizes up to the No-trump standard is generally known as the "average system," and has been found more simple and much safer than any of the other tests suggested. It avoids the necessity of taking the Ten into consideration, and does not involve the problems in mental arithmetic which become necessary when each honor is valued at a certain figure and a total fixed as requisite for a No-trump bid.
The theory upon which a player with possibly only three tricks declares to take seven, is that a hand containing three sure tricks, benefited by the advantage derived from having twenty-six cards played in unison, is apt to produce one more; and until the Dummy refuse to help, he may be figured on for average assistance. The Dealer is expecting to take four tricks with his own hand, and if the Dummy take three (one-third of the remaining nine), he will fulfil his contract. Even if the Dummy fail to render the amount of aid the doctrine of chances makes probable, the declaration is not likely to prove disastrous, as one No-trump is rarely doubled.
It is also conventional to declare one No-trump with a five-card or longer Club or Diamond suit,[[2] ] headed by Ace, King, Queen, and one other Ace. This is the only hand containing strength in but two suits with which a No-trump should be called.
As a rule a combination of high cards massed into two suits does not produce a No-trumper, although the same cards, divided into three suits, may do so. For example, a hand containing Ace, Queen, Knave, in one suit; King, Queen, Knave, in another, and the two remaining suits unguarded, should not be bid No-trump, although the high cards are stronger than the example given above with strength in three suits.
Admitting all the advantage of the original No-trump, even the boldest bidders do not consider it a sound declaration with two defenseless suits, unless one of the strong suits be established and the other headed by an Ace. The reason for this is easily understood. When the adversaries have a long suit of which they have all the high cards, the chances are that it will be opened; but if not, it will soon be found unless the Declarer can at once run a suit of considerable length. When a suit is established by the adversaries, the Declarer is put in an embarrassing position, and would probably have been better off playing a Trump declaration. It is a reasonable risk to trust the partner to stop one suit, but it is being much too sanguine to expect him to protect two. Should he fail to have either stopped, the Declarer's loss is so heavy that only with a long and apparently established suit and an additional Ace is the risk justified. It is realized that the case cited, namely, Ace, King, Queen, and two others, may not prove to be an established (or solid, as it is often called) suit. If however, the division be at all even, as it is in the vast majority of cases, the suit can be run, and it is cited as the minimum holding which may be treated as established.
With the present value of Clubs and Diamonds, either suit presents an effective original declaration. There is, therefore, much less excuse than formerly for a reckless No-trump bid, based upon five or six Club or Diamond tricks and one other suit stopped. When, however, an Ace of another suit accompanies the unusual Club or Diamond strength, the advantage of being the first to bid No-trump makes the chance worth taking.
The hands above cited as containing the minimum strength to warrant the call are all what are known as "weak No-trumpers." This kind of bidding may not be conservative, but experience has shown it to be effective as long as it is kept within the specified limits. A No-trump must, however, justify the partner in acting upon the assumption that the bidder has at least the stipulated strength, and it merely courts disaster to venture such a declaration with less than the conventional holding.
A few examples may possibly make the above somewhat more clear, as by that means the various "minimum-strength" or "border-line" No-trumpers, and also hands which fall just below the mark, can be accurately shown. It will be understood that an effort is made to give the weakest hands which justify the No-trump declaration, and also the hands which fall short by the smallest possible margin. In other words, the hands which puzzle the Declarer. With greater strength or greater weakness the correct bid is plainly indicated.
The suits are numbered, not designated by their respective names, in order to emphasize that it does not matter where the weakness is located.