Many slam decisions are easy. You find a strong fit, count twelve tricks, and bid the natural suit slam. Everyone nods, you make it, and the board moves on.
The problem is that sometimes everyone else does exactly the same thing.
When a suit slam is obvious and virtually certain to be bid across the field, simply reaching it may not be enough. That’s when the real question appears:
Should this be upgraded to 6NT?
The key idea: the suit slam is already “par for the field”
This article is not about choosing between two marginal slams.
It’s about hands where:
a suit slam (say 6♠) is natural and safe
most competent pairs will bid it
making it will produce an average result
In these cases, bidding the suit slam isn’t wrong—it’s just uninformative. You’re matching the field, not beating it.
This is exactly the situation discussed here: Why “Making Your Contract” Isn’t Always Enough
Why 6NT becomes interesting
If the suit slam is routine, the only ways to gain are:
overtricks (often unavailable in slams), or
choosing a higher-scoring contract
That’s where 6NT comes in.
When both contracts make:
6NT outscores a suit slam
at matchpoints, that difference can be decisive
at IMPs, it usually doesn’t matter
So the upgrade question is inherently a matchpoint question, not a general slam question.
This distinction matters: IMPs vs Matchpoints: How Strategy Changes Everything
When upgrading to 6NT is justified
Upgrading from an obvious suit slam to 6NT makes sense when all three of these are true:
The suit slam is clearly going to be the field contract
If most pairs will be in 6♠, staying there guarantees only an average.6NT is not meaningfully riskier
You don’t need ruffs, entries are stable, tricks are largely cashable, and the suit fit isn’t providing real safety—just comfort.The extra points actually separate results
If many tables are making the slam, small scoring differences matter.
This is not gambling. It’s re-evaluating risk once the baseline is known.
When the upgrade is a mistake
Upgrading to 6NT is usually wrong when:
the suit slam gains real safety from trumps
bad breaks are a serious concern
timing or entries depend on the suit
notrump requires guessing
In these cases, the suit slam isn’t just “natural”—it’s structurally safer. Giving that up just to differentiate is usually a losing play.
This is the same tradeoff discussed here: Safety Play vs Greed: Choosing the Right Line
Why this decision is hard at the table
At a single table, players rarely know whether a slam is “field-obvious” or not. Everything feels personal:
“6♠ feels fine”
“6NT feels unnecessary”
Without comparison, it’s impossible to tell whether you matched the field or missed an opportunity to gain.
This is why these decisions feel so unsatisfying afterward: From “That Felt Good” to “Was That Good?”
Seeing the upgrade clearly in hindsight
When you can see:
which contract most tables reached
how often each contract made
how the scores actually ranked
the upgrade decision becomes obvious after the fact. Over time, patterns emerge, and instincts improve.
Tools like Bridge@Home make this kind of comparison visible, helping players learn when upgrading to 6NT was genuinely right—and when it was just unnecessary risk.
The takeaway
This isn’t about preferring no-trump over suits.
It’s about recognizing when a contract is too obvious to win with, and knowing when—and when not—to upgrade in order to gain on the field.
Strong bridge isn’t just about finding good contracts.
It’s about finding the right contract relative to everyone else.