Hello Mr Wolff

Isnt it very tempting for West to bid 1 Heart over 1 Club ? Poor heart suit quality should deter that bid at the given vulnerability. I dont know how but if any west overcalls 1 Heart, NS can take contract 2 down doubled. So West in the deal makes a good judgemental pass. Though if West bids 1 Heart and NS fail to punish and get into 3 NT it would be easier for West to judge that East has doubleton Heart.

best regards

Shantanu Rastogi

Hi Bobby, East,if playing Smith Peters,could play the two of clubs to deter a second heart from West,and 4C to encourage a second heart..watch the pips!Some would prefer count in clubs.If declarer has long clubs in dummy and depending on the entry situation,smith peters should give way to count by East,in case West has Axx clubs,to duck till second or third round..but the question for our host is whether he would play smith peters here? Regards~Patrick.

Hi Shantanu,

Do not try to do too much in any smaller phase in bridge. Whether it is trying to bid, when vulnerable, expecting to get off to killing leads, playing both sides of the defense without adequate information, or any kind of second guessing during the hand.

Sure West could bid, and on this hand it would be safe, since there are no logical ways the defense could double that contract for penalties. Does that make an overcall a terrible bid? Certainly not, but do not sweat it, if you do not.

However, the absolute key to these 52 cards, is, while the opening leader, to read partner’s specific card as not possible to be from 7-5-2. Your partner has the inviolate responsibility to make that right play (the 5 in this case, signalling the impossibility of having 3, but rather 1 or more likely on the bidding, 2).

After jumping that hurdle, it then becomes a standout play to look at the dummy, in one’s own mind, review the bidding and find that it is possible for partner to have the ace of spades and then play for that. Most of the time partner will not have that key card, but on this hand he does, and down goes the contract. Lead the nine as described in the text, usually denying anything higher, and although it should not be necessary to so do, partner will appreciate your help.

This type of defense, simple though it may be, should give constant satisfaction to the EW partnership, when the contract is defeated.

My guess is that partner will have the ace of spades perhaps only 10-20% of the time, (remember declarer then has to have every other honor card and then only add up to 12),
but whether he does or he doesn’t is not the point. Just play that kind of bridge, making those type of plays, and I will guarantee that you will stand chin to chin with almost all players you will ever face.

The beauty of the game revolves around the consistency of playing every hand (as declarer and/or on defense) in the most advantageous manner. GO FOR IT!

Hi Patrick,

As Iain might say, our comments crossed.

Smith Peters (or in the USA, usually called Smith Echoes) can be a useful convention.

However:

1. On this hand (and often at trick 1 and especially against NT) count becomes critical as opposed to Smith when an original 3rd seat defender has to decide, usually then at trick 2, whether holding 2 or 3 small ones becomes the crucial difference.

2. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out, that to play Smith Echo ethically, consistent and non-informative tempo is as close together as Siamese Twins, making a break in tempo (BIT) reverberate at the table like a large neon sign in a small town, as one considers his play (on the above hand) in clubs at trick 2. Should he regard holding 3 small instead of 2, positive or not? That, like Shakespeare and Hamlet, is the question and to not take that almost always possible flaw into consideration is to be Ostrich like.

3. There are those players (often excellent) who claim they always study exactly the same length of time before playing, so they should get the right to play Smith (or for that matter, the same problem of BIT in odd and even signals) and while in the USA, full odd and even signalling is not allowed, but Smith is.

You decide, but IMHO any convention which allows itself the opportunity to go significantly underground in its application should not rely on anyone (great or small) to claim to be 100% circumspect in his or her performance.

When you raised this question, I bet you didn’t expect this answer, or did you?

Very simply, I will repeat, Smith is a useful convention, but you then fill in the blanks.

Hi Bobby,certainly not the answer I expect,as you say the perfect scenerio as regards tempo in play is not easy to achieve,hence BIT..did you say that? 😉

Hi Folks,

Although Mr. Smith (British I believe) has his name attached to these peters, didn’t Dorothy Hayden also come up with the same idea or at least was a huge supporter of it? Another Bols tip and crossed concepts this time – or great minds think alike, despite one player’s lesser renown.

Regards,

Iain

Hi Patrick,

Yes and particularly so when self-serving gain is in the air, when unauthorized information is passed.

My 2nd favorite game is watching American football so what about changing the rules so that referees, after a play, but before he gives a penalty, that he asks the various lineman whether any of them held someone illegally on the preceding play.

Expected honesty has its place, but giving competitors a key to one’s lock box isn’t always the best solution.

Hi Iain,

While other great inventions might generally have the correct inventor named, bridge conventions might be the exception, where too often, enterprise trumps reality.

Millions of bridge players have been playing Rapee instead of Stayman for many years and not to mention Wolff sign off merely being a variation of Flint.