Hi Ross,

This hand is well worth discussing and then analyzing. While I am not against Smith, even playing it against suit contracts, the perils of playing it are usually left unmentioned. Here, if EW were playing reverse Smith, certainly a spade would be continued at trick 3 by East, not the failing choice of trying to kill the diamond entry to dummy. However, of course, assuming EW makes clear what their convention means, would certainly enable the declarer to duck the next two rounds of spades since it would become apparent that West, after leading from 3 little would not try and persuade his partner to continue spades unless his partner wanted to do it anyway.

However, unless the opponents would be brought up to snuff, they may not have enough chutzpah to both find and make use of their important information. While this is not the place nor the time to get deeply into Active Ethics, it may be worth thinking about.

Years ago and while addressing an appeal at the 1998 Lille World Mixed Pairs I cautioned the declarer in retrospect that he should have made sure their inexperienced opponents knew what his bids were supposed to show and to not do so is like “shooting fish in a barrel”. He retorted, “Mr. Wolff (I was even old back then) I was taught that shooting fish in a barrel was the goal of the game, not that it may sometimes be construed as unethical”.

We must decide what the standards should be or otherwise “go fish” (excuse the pun). BTW the declarer’s side did not win the appeal!

I love your blogs and the way you present them.

Your analysis is on the mark Bobby. The more I write, and source hands from my playing experiences, the more I see how difficult it is to come up with “pure” problems; since often there was enough information at hand (if looked for) for the protaganist to find the winning solution to a problem.

As you know better than most of us – bridge is primarily about making fewer mistakes than the other guys – it’s a given mistakes will be made – the subtlety and nature of mistakes will vary depending on the calibre of the player in question, but there is far more blog fodder from imperfect plays (I find anyway) than from brilliancies.

To produce a daily column for 25 years plus is truly a remarkable achievement; all the more so while adhering to your (almost) impossibly high standards. Congratulations to you, and thank you for your continued advice and commentary.

Hi Ross,

I’m overwhelmed by your compliments and even more so, by your positive attitude.

You are so right about the road to winning runs through making fewer mistakes than your opponents and like Zia has so eloquently pointed out, “Bridge is the master, always will be and just when I begin to think I know something, the mysteries of the game rise up and bite.”

Producing a daily column for many years does require an attention to detail, but I have been truly blessed through the years with the talented and wonderful people who have mightily contributed. Very simply, without any one of them, I would either have failed miserably or been forced to quit.

Please keep gracing bridge by making us have to use our brain or go bust.

Looks like I’m late to the party to add any worthwhile comments other than to say nice hand.

Ross, I thoroughly enjoy the blog and never fail to gain insight from the hands presented. My compliments on the manner in which you describe the hands and the play, and especially on the clever commentary you provide. Today’s hand (featuring Smith Echo) demonstrates the old adage that each convention works brilliantly in some cases and poorly in others. If only I could add to my system precisely those tools which work 100% of the time, I might actually be able to compete with the top players more successfully. Alas, they don’t exist so I will take your excellent advice and simply focus on trying to make fewer errors than my opponents.

Julie thank you sincerely for your very kind feedback. Your check is in the mail !

You might be interested to know there was another variation on this hand, which I chose not to write up for fear of losing my audience. One west saw at a glance that an honest Smith signal would do them in. The combination of his low spade lead; partner’s jack at trick one; and an honest Smith play would surely scupper the defense against a capable declarer.

So this west psyched his Smith card ! He played the heart 10, which in reverse Smith parlance denied warm feelings towards spades. It was an instinctive play, in tempo, and not one he could recall making before.

He hoped his partner would have no choice but to play back a spade anyway, but in this instance, surely declarer would go wrong.

Alas, the patient died on the operating table. Partner decided spades had no future, and shifted to a diamond.

Now west is wondering if the convention card should be annotated to say that they have psyched Reverse Smith on occasion.

In Smith Echo, how do you handle the situation where declarer wins the first trick and leads a suit in which you (the defender) are void? Do you echo in another suit or do you use some sort of suit preference signal?

Thanks for any help.

That’s a very good question Neil. In fact, a variation of that same question arguably determined who won this year’s Vanderbilt final. (In that instance, the defender who led had a singleton in the suit declarer attacked at trick 2.)

Some partnerships play a form of “Extended Smith” – which, once named, I suppose can be a variety of different agreements.

That is, some play that the actual suit they pitch is irrelevant – the size of the card they discard is in fact a Smith echo for the originally led suit.

Others might play a form of odd even or Lavinthal discards – which, although not necessarily defined as Extended Smith per se, have the ability to point sunshine at the first led suit.

In my own partnerships, we have not adopted any of these agreements. We pitch as informatively as possible and try to tell partner what we think he needs to know on this particular hand.

I agree with you about the red skirt against the teal. That’s relaly nice. Also, I agree about the cute cartoons, like on the skirt.I also love the polka-dotted fingernails the girls have. So cute! The furry skirt is relaly fabulous, too. So is the way the model is covering her mouth, as if to say, “Oh, behave!” I like the nerdy-styled girl in the yellow outfit. And I like the green shirt with the black bulbs all over it. Also, the girl’s belly in that green-shirt photo is rather enticing.

You should go to newbeetle.org and post youre question. Some New Beetle owners could help you there. Plus you can get tips

That’s a wise answer to a tricky question

Normally I’m against killing but this article slaughtered my ignorance.

angieeee!! agaiinnnn m backkk!! sooo sorry havnt been around for a while.. missed you and your fabulous dishes 🙂 and olive muffins?? m sure gonna prepare this soon since my husband love olives soo much.. hehe love it very muchhhh!!happy new year 2011 to you and your family.. cheers!!nora

418 of 435 people found the following review helpful Very nice looking, good protection but zipper a bit weak, November 20, 2011By  (SF Bay Area, CA United States) –      Amazon Verified Purchase() This review is from: Customer Video Review Length:: 3:05 MinsPlease see my video review!Not noted in the video is the fact that the zipper on this feels a bit weak. I’ve not had any issues with this however.Help other customers find the most helpful reviews Was this review helpful to you?  | Â