No Trump Slam? Spades? Clubs?

A K 10 7 4 2
K 5
A
A Q 9 6
J 5 3 Q 9 6
J 7 4 2 10 9 6
J 10 6 5 4 3 9 2
------ J 10 8 5 3
8
A Q 8 3
K Q 8 7
K 7 4 2

WestNorthEastSouth
Pass 1
Pass 1 Pass 1 NT
Pass 6 NT All pass
This is a loverly hand. It carries a number of lessons, but two were so crystal-clear that I decided to enter it in two places The other is Thirty-Three Points. Here there is a corroboration of the value of no trump slams when you seem to have all suits stopped with high cards. Six no makes because when the bad split in clubs is revealed, you test spades, and find they do behave. But if you're in clubs, you can't run from that horrendous split, while if you're in spades, you're dependent on opening lead not finding a club lead and then a 3-3 spade split, a deucedly inferior contract. And we might take a look at the scoring: 6 no brought 84%, 6 spades 66 and 3 no 63! So if you're not bidding 6 no, you hardly lose anything by playing a safe game bid!
Six people were in 6 clubs and the same number were in 7 clubs, getting an awfully bad break. But I have a lot more sympathy for those in 7 clubs than those in 6. Why is that? Well, six clubs has to be a bad board, even if you make, even, indeed, if you make with an overtrick. You've got the point count for 6 no and shouldn't be fiddling around with a minor in a matchpoint event, such as this was, unless, yes, you're going for a higher bonus (little slam over game, grand over little). But 7 clubs at least offers a shot at a top board. Indeed, noting that a 3-2 split in clubs is about a 68% chance, and that grand slam is then a cakewalk, I would put it on a par with 6 no.
The no trump slam is safer offering a couple of chances (either clubs or spades behave), while 7 clubs is daring, offering high reward with luck and a very poor score without luck, which was not to be had here.
In discussing no trump slams, I have several reasons why they are superior when feasible. That is to say, it's not just a matter of having control of every suit There will be times when you'll get an extra trick on a ruff. Nevertheless they do offer their own advantages. Here this hand offers no fewer than three of the reasons postulated for going to no trump. One is the quick ruff, which would have rendered 6 spades unmakable. A second is the scoring. Even those in 6 spades who escaped a club lead got 18 percentage points lower than the no trumpers. And even if 6 clubs would make, say on a 4-1 split, it would have been a considerably lower score than no trump. And thirdly, there is the advantage of being able to abandon one suit and look for winners in another when the first suit doesn't split right, which you're not going to do if that suit is trump.

By golly, I did think of a holding where six clubs makes, while spades and no trump don't offer slam. Clubs are 4-1, spades are 4-2. Lemme see if that scans. You unblock the A of diamonds, take 3 rounds of trump, ending in the closed hand, ruff a diamond, cash two spades, sluffing a heart, cash the K of hearts and -- yes, it seems to scan. The closed hand has top red-suit winners and a trump, while East can't get the lead except to spend his last trump, which he can do at his leisure. Does that vindicate the club bidders? Not at all. There's little merit in figuring how your bid might have been the top scorer if only . . . .Well, we've gotta change the distribution of the spades and of the clubs, and East has to have at least two spades. That's too much to vindicate a club bid when two other denominations bring in fine scores without changing a thing. You've got to go with likelihood, and if you have the tickets that invite a no trump slam, you'll be better off 19 times out of 20 in no trump. You just aren't going to get rich playing the minors if there are alternatives.