Smith Echo for Dummies

I was explaining Smith Echo to Guthi, and figured I might as well put up a post. I don't have too much experience with Smith Echo myself so this is just an introductory, for-dummies level post.

Smith Echo is used in defense against NT contracts. It applies only when your side leads low and the declarer wins the first trick. It allows both defenders to communicate some information (i.e. attitude signal) regarding the led suit. Whatever suit the declarer plays on trick two, both defenders play high-low to encourage the originally led suit or low-high to say he holds nothing extra beyond what has already been played/promised. It is extremely useful when you need to figure out whether to continue the suit or shift when you get in, no matter which defender you are. Let me elucidate with a couple of examples:























Defending 3NT. Partner leads the spade 3, 5, J, K. Declarer plays the DK out of his hand, which you win. What do you do now? If partner started with AQ or AT of spades with five cards, a spade return immediately scuttles the contract. If he started with four cards, you may need to play a spade through declarer and get a heart back for another spade through. But what if partner does not hold the ace at all? Then a shift is in order. How do you know what the situation is? Smith Echo provides the solution. Watch partner's carding on the diamond play. If he echoes, he is indicating that a spade return will do the trick; else you have to try something else. On this hand, he plays the 3 of diamonds to your ace to indicate that he is not interested in spades (he knows you don't have the ace of spades).

Now, can you figure out what is the correct return to break the contract? Think on it...


Yes, the only winning return is the HJ, known as the "surrounding play". If declarer covers, partner wins and sends a heart through dummy's Tx; if he doesn't cover, simply play another low heart.

Remember that both defenders should be signaling in Smith Echo. Let's try a variation of the same hand, in which it is the other defender who gets back in.























You lead the spade 3, 5, J, K. Declarer plays DK out of his hand, which you win and stop to consider. If partner started with QJx of spades, you need to return a spade. Otherwise, you must shift to a low heart and hope to find partner with the king. Again, if you were watching partner's diamond cards, on this hand he would have played low to your DA, and you must switch to a heart. Remember to cash the ace of spades before switching, as you were unable to show the smith echo yourself, so he might place you with ATxxx of spades and try to return a spade through declarer instead of the heart!

There are situations in which both defenders get to show Smith Echo on Trick 2. The information communicated this way may be vital in setting the contract.

Cheers,
Prashanth.

The Obvious Shift Principle

Read about the Obvious Shift Principle for guidelines on signalling in defence. Much damage was caused to IITM bridge by the stupidity of Guthi &c., who decided some two (three?) years back that they would always signal count because it was too difficult to keep track of the different signals. While all of us now recognize—broadly—the types situation in which each kind of signal is warranted, the fundamental meaning of signals still eludes us, in my opinion.

What does an encouragement signify? You don't know? Visit the link to find out. It contains a nice codification of rules.

Who knows?

Guthi pulled out the wrong bidding card on this board. Who knows what would have happened if he didn't?

Guthi opened 2NT, and I straight away wondered whether we belonged in 6NT or 7NT. To bide my time I bid Gerber, intending to check the number of kings as I definitely couldn't bid 7NT with a missing king.

























Alas, Guthi pulled out 5S instead of 4S, and although I suspected what had happened, I couldn't ethically use 5NT or 6C to ask for kings (plus there was a risk of misunderstanding) so I had to pick without that information. I chose the conservative 6NT with five points outstanding.

Guthi cashed his major suit winners, pitching three diamonds and a club from dummy. He then cashed the top two clubs, and no queen appeared. He then played DK and a low D to the Ace, and it turned out that his last diamond was good. East, holding the queen of clubs as well as the third diamond, had been squeezed on the run of the majors! 6NT made 7. At the other table, Aniket and Anurag were in 6D, an inferior contract that will only make 6.

Who knows what would have happened if Guthi had responded 4S and I asked for kings? Would I have bid 7? If I did, would Guthi have played for the squeeze or the finesse? The squeeze I think is a slightly superior percentage; it works whenever the person with the CQ holds more than two diamonds, and also when the person with two or less diamonds holds CQ doubleton. I think this adds up to slightly more than 50%, which is the probability for the finesse. Ashok says it will be slightly less than 50%. Can someone do the math?

Cheers
Prashanth.

(Edit: Switched to the image given by Ashok. Extraneous comment in it was also provided by Ashok :) )

Junior Nationals Summary

This year we headed to the Junior Bridge Nationals at Mumbai with high spirits, as we were putting up our best team yet. Ashok, Prajwal, Guthi and I have been practicing hard and reading a lot this past year. Tota and Angad joined us at Mumbai and though they were out of touch they performed well enough.

The tournament turnout was disappointingly low; there were only 36 players from around the country. Guthi was not surprised, but I thought considering there were nearly 30 players at the first junior nationals at hyderabad three years ago, there should be a lot more now. And that 36 included six 10-12 year old kids from Salem. While I can understand CBA's sentiment in encouraging them, their presence totally messed up the scoresheets in the individual event and the pairs event. But it wasn't entirely their fault either that the above two events were not much fun; quite a lot of the players there were novices at the game. I had expected a significant number of people to be in the "intermediate" category, but what we got was a bunch of beginners, a contingent of six good players from west bengal, and another good team consisting of Aniket Sanghvi, Anurag Mohota, Soumya Das (dashu), Ayan Mandal, and a fifth player (Pravin) we didn't know from before.

In all, there were 7 teams for the team of four event, and immediately it was clear that the top three teams were way ahead of the field. We were informed that the top four teams would qualify for the superleagues, so for the top three teams it was a time of taking stock of the other two, and for the rest it was a race for fourth place. The other IIT Madras team from Tapti hostel narrowly missed qualifying, and it was a Mumbai team that made it. As for us, we lost by IMP margins of 10-11 to both the west bengal team and Aniket's team in the 8-board match.

The ostensible purpose of the superleagues was to decide who faces who in the semifinals (the winner gets to select the opponent), but they carried over the VPs from the leagues so Aniket's team was too far ahead to catch up even though we won all three league matches, getting the max 25 VPs two out of three times. So it was just play practice and gaining an understanding of the opponents' styles and systems. Also for us it was a morale booster, winning all matches comfortably, and beating the west bengal team soundly. Thus we had a psychological advantage going against them in the semifinals, once again winning by 25 VPs. Guthi and I had been playing really well from the superleague stage and we kept it up in the semifinals.

Then came the time of reckoning, but somehow we just found ourselves slipping in the finals, losing a few IMPs here and a few IMPs there to end up 24 IMPs down after 20 boards. In the final 10 boards, after no significant chance of gain after 6 boards I stopped concentrating and we slipped further to lose another 12 IMPs or so at the finish.

The good thing about the tournament was that we made a good impression by trouncing the west bengal team by 25 VPs twice and beating Aniket's team once (though Aniket himself missed that match). We didn't lose because they were better but because of the unpredictability inherent in bridge, and perhaps because we didn't handle our nerves as well as we should have in the finals. I hope at least a couple of us make it to the Indian Junior Bridge team this year, and we know we have a great shot at winning the JNs next year.

Cheers
Prashanth.