[gnasher]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-26, 13:59, said:

It's funny how I agree with you and then you disagree with me.

You said you agreed with something I'd said, then you said something else that I didn't agree with. What would you expect me to do in those circumstances?

Quote

Of course, signaling low might not work either as it might seem to be low, but just be a singleton.

Yes, that's why you need Smith Echoes as well.

Quote

On the other hand, at IMPs, the defense will take whatever risks are necessary to set the contract. At matchpoints it might make a difference because they will worry that extra overtricks will mean a zero.

With the example I gave, a diamond switch would beat the contract and a spade continuation would let it through.

[VM1973]

 gnasher, on 2011-August-26, 14:13, said:

You said you agreed with something I'd said, then you said something else that I didn't agree with. What would you expect me to do in those circumstances?


Yes, that's why you need Smith Echoes as well.


With the example I gave, a diamond switch would beat the contract and a spade continuation would let it through.

---

South leads the ♠7,4,J,K.
Next comes the ♥7,3,A,5.
Then comes the ♣2,7,J,K.

Our perceptive South, noting the missing ♥4 decides his partner must be starting the famous Smith Echo to announce the original holding of QJ3 in the North. Confidently our South leads ♠6 but the declarer chalks up +630 with 2 spades, 4 clubs, and 4 hearts.

Meanwhile in the closed room 3NT is beaten 5 tricks (4 diamonds, 4 spades, and the club K). How much is 1130, some 15 IMPs?

Sometimes you get the bear... sometimes the bear gets you.

[gnasher]

I don't really understand your point, but on this hand South should probably duck the first club.

[mikeh]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-26, 16:08, said:

---

South leads the ♠7,4,J,K.
Next comes the ♥7,3,A,5.
Then comes the ♣2,7,J,K.

Our perceptive South, noting the missing ♥4 decides his partner must be starting the famous Smith Echo to announce the original holding of QJ3 in the North. Confidently our South leads ♠6 but the declarer chalks up +630 with 2 spades, 4 clubs, and 4 hearts.

Meanwhile in the closed room 3NT is beaten 5 tricks (4 diamonds, 4 spades, and the club K). How much is 1130, some 15 IMPs?

Sometimes you get the bear... sometimes the bear gets you.

Your example is not a good one.

1stly, few good players (if any) would win the club K on the first hook....most would duck on general principles, and on your example, the cat would be out of the bag should declarer attempt to cross in hearts again, even if he led the Q on the second round.

2ndly, if one plays smith, N would have a far clearer come on in hearts than the 5. How about the 9? I doubt that many N's would see any need to keep the 9 in their hand, if they had QJx in spades and played regular smith!

It is possible to construct hands on which any device fails, whether it be Smith, Reverse Smith, udca, odd/even and so on. But your effort wasn't valid.

You might also want to take a constructive lesson from this. That is: when you want to send a message, make it as clear as you can afford to. Thus, as N, were you playing regular smith, and you hold 9854, whatever you do don't play the 5!!!!!!! Play the f&*king 9....don't play the 5 and then blame partner for not reading it

No expert player would fall for the play you described simply because no expert player would play partner to play the 5 from 9854/954/854. Of course, on a different day, where the red suits were switched and if opener has Q987 in diamonds, opposite AKJ10, the bear may well have bitten us, but even then only if we are dumb enough to win the first club. Once we duck, partner gets to play the 4 the next time and we can work it out.

[VM1973]

 mikeh, on 2011-August-26, 16:24, said:

Your example is not a good one.

1stly, few good players (if any) would win the club K on the first hook....most would duck on general principles, and on your example, the cat would be out of the bag should declarer attempt to cross in hearts again, even if he led the Q on the second round.

2ndly, if one plays smith, N would have a far clearer come on in hearts than the 5. How about the 9? I doubt that many N's would see any need to keep the 9 in their hand, if they had QJx in spades and played regular smith!

It is possible to construct hands on which any device fails, whether it be Smith, Reverse Smith, udca, odd/even and so on. But your effort wasn't valid.

You might also want to take a constructive lesson from this. That is: when you want to send a message, make it as clear as you can afford to. Thus, as N, were you playing regular smith, and you hold 9854, whatever you do don't play the 5!!!!!!! Play the f&*king 9....don't play the 5 and then blame partner for not reading it

No expert player would fall for the play you described simply because no expert player would play partner to play the 5 from 9854/954/854. Of course, on a different day, where the red suits were switched and if opener has Q987 in diamonds, opposite AKJ10, the bear may well have bitten us, but even then only if we are dumb enough to win the first club. Once we duck, partner gets to play the 4 the next time and we can work it out.

Ok.

---

Happier?

A) Surely you cannot claim that South should hold off on the first club and even if he does, dummy is still on the board with the ♣10.
B) South could easily visualize North holding ♥Q54 making his Smith Echo.

Now for those who are being purposefully obtuse... the point should be that every convention has its good side... and its bad. I'm sure the convention works out wonderfully on some boards... but a clever declarer can also turn it against you. So playing the Smith Echo is not a panacea for all defensive woes nor is adopting it without its risk.

[mikeh]

Look....we had a go at it on another thread and a number of posters indicated that they didn't see any benefit to us slagging each other. I agree with them, and upposted the post that so stated. So let's not do that here.

I trust that you recognize that when I wrote that

'it is possible to construct hands on which any device fails'

I understood that for every method known to bridge, there will be situations with which it cannot cope.

No-one here is being, as far as I can tell, deliberately obtuse. I was merely pointing out that your example didn't advance your argument, not that it was impossible to create one that would, ok?

When you post on a forum such as this, you can expect that bad constructions will attract criticism. That is nothing personal, and I am sure that in the long run we all benefit because it leads to a reduction in the posting of bad constructions! Good constructions can engender appreciation of the points in issue, bad ones generally don't.

[Free]

 whereagles, on 2011-August-26, 08:15, said:

How can North know his pard has 5 spades?

South overcalled 2♠ and it wasn't alerted. LOL

[whereagles]

Oh I missed that. Sry.

[phil_20686]

 whereagles, on 2011-August-26, 10:06, said:

Let's be careful here... if you play low to give count you might let declarer win the 9 from AQ9

that gives partner only two cards higher than the 4. Which is impossible if you play 4th best leads, he would have led the 2.

[barryallen]

Has someone edited the original hand, because I am having difficulty here? Because of the 2♠ over call, seeing dummy with 3 small ♠, holding ♠10xx, I would be giving count every time.

Because I expect declarer to have 2♠ and whatever card I play will have little affect on the tricks he takes. Even if declarer has 3♠, I can't see anything lost. If partner has 3 ♠ honours, I would expect to see one of them led, as it is it looks like partner and declarer have 2 each, with my only real constructive input to give count?