s in most cases too great to make it advisable, but the
weakness take-out should be used equally with any one of the four
suits, as it is a defensive, not an offensive, declaration. With a
score, Clubs and Diamonds possess the same value that Hearts and Spades
have at love, and should be treated similarly.

WHEN TO OVERBID WITH STRONG CLUBS

The question of whether the Third Hand, with strong Clubs, should
overbid his partner's No-trump has aroused considerable discussion. The
argument in favor of such a declaration in Clubs, which does not apply
to any other suit, is that the difference between a strength and a
weakness overbid can be made apparent by calling three and two
respectively, and yet the show of strength will not force the Dealer
higher than two No-trumps, when his hand is such that the announcement
that the Third Hand holds strong Clubs, but nothing else, makes the
return to No-trump advisable.

On this basis of reasoning some believe in calling three Clubs whenever
an otherwise trickless Third Hand contains five or more Clubs headed by
Ace, King, Queen. This, it is conceded, only results advantageously
when the No-trump has been called with one suit unguarded, and Clubs is
one of the protected suits. When the No-trump has been declared with
such a hand as

Spades Ace, King, X
Hearts X
Diamonds Ace, King, Knave, X, X
Clubs Knave, Ten, X, X

the employment of such a system of declaration is exceptionally
advantageous; as the game is assured in Clubs, while if the No-trump be
left in, the adversaries will probably save it by making all their
Hearts before the Declarer secures the lead.

It is admitted that this case is somewhat unusual, but the advocates of
the system, conceding this, argue it is advantageous to have this bid
in the repertory, and, in the exceptional instance, to obtain the
benefit, which is bound to ensue from its use. The contention is that
it can do no harm, with such a Club holding, to force the partner to
two No-trumps, if he have all the other suits stopped, and the fact
that three Clubs is called with strength more clearly accentuates the
principle that the two Club takeout means nothing but weakness.

Admitting the force of this argument, and conceding that the system
advocated should be universally adopted were there not a wiser use for
the three Club take-out, first brings forth the question of whether the
case does not more frequently arise in