In no-trump contracts, declarer often must choose which of two suits to attack first. Unfortunately, there is no simple formula to govern these cases, and declarer will do best by relying on common sense rather than a general rule.

Take this deal where South is in three no-trump. He wins West’s heart lead with the queen and immediately faces a crucial decision — whether to play diamonds or clubs first. Declarer knows from the bidding that he is contending with at least a five-card heart suit held by East.

If you look at all four hands, it becomes obvious that the contract can be made by going after the clubs first. South tries the club finesse, losing to East’s king, ducks the heart return and takes the ace next, leaving East’s remaining hearts to wither on the vine. Declarer eventually finishes with 10 tricks.

But if South tackles diamonds first, he goes down. West wins with the ace, returns a heart to South’s ace (it does not help South to hold up), and East later gains the lead with the king of clubs to put the contract down one.

At issue is the question of whether declarer, who cannot see the East-West hands, should know to play clubs first. Actually, he should, but not because the suit is longer. That is merely a coincidence.

South should reason that if West has the king of clubs, the contract is ironclad regardless of which suit he attacks at trick two. He therefore automatically assigns that card to East and dispossesses him of it at once.

It is true that if East has both the king of clubs and ace of diamonds, the contract is doomed no matter which of the two suits you attack first. What it boils down to is that playing the clubs first will always make the contract if it can be made, while trying the diamonds first might or might not make the contract.

Tomorrow >> Famous Hand.

— Steve Becker