Smith - playing in tempo
#1
Posted 2011-April-25, 16:44
Biting back the short Anglo-Saxon answer that sprang to mind, I asked him why, but I didn't really understand his explanation. However, I believe that at least one top American (Hamman?) has expressed similar views.
Can anyone suggest a reason that tempo when giving a Smith signal might be of of greater sensitivity than tempo in other situations?
#2
Posted 2011-April-25, 17:51
On the other hand if someone plays count, it is very strange that they need to consider before making their first signal, so I would say the reverse is true.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#3
Posted 2011-April-25, 19:04
I have had several people where I could tell when the discard/play was a signal, and when it was just a card, from tempo - and I'm sure their partners could too.
Having said that it's not "more sensitive than" anytime else, but "as sensitive as".
#4
Posted 2011-April-25, 19:12
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2011-April-26, 00:39
#6
Posted 2011-April-26, 07:31
A fourth-highest 2 is led against 1NT - 3NT. Dummy got 543 and declarers RHO inserts the Jack, losing to declarers King. When declarer now play a suit, RHO got 4 "options":
With Jxx or Jx: A quick negative
With Jxxx: A slow negative
With QJ: A slow positive
With QJx or better: A fast positive
#7
Posted 2011-April-26, 08:53
Suppose you cash an ace at trick one, and then lead another suit at trick two on which partner plays a small card. Now you can infer things from the speed he plays to that trick. So we should ban attitude signals after trick one.
I think some people are just trying to make life difficult for others.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#8
Posted 2011-April-26, 09:35
bluejak, on 2011-April-26, 08:53, said:
From the ACBL GCC: CARDING
.... In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit preference systems at trick one [obvious shift? - LPL], when they are deemed to be playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament committee.
Although my partner and I are sensitive to this, we ALWAYS pause at trick one and explain to the declarer that this is our standard strategy and tempo at trick one.
C3: Copious Canape Club is still my favorite system. (Ultra upgraded, PM for notes)
Santa Fe Precision ♣ published 8/19. TOP3 published 11/20. Magic experiment (Science Modernized) with Lenzo. 2020: Jan Eric Larsson's Cottontail ♣. 2020. BFUN (Bridge For the UNbalanced) 2021: Weiss Simplified ♣ (Canape & Relay). 2022: Canary ♣ Modernized, 2023-4: KOK Canape.
#9
Posted 2011-April-26, 10:55
And of course as always, technically the lawyers are right. Playing upside-down attitude, I lead the ace, dummy shows up with 983, and partner plays a slow 2 - hmm, he may well have JTx. Exactly the same problem as with Smith in the examples above!
Except it's not - players have seen this tempo-sensitive attitude signal many times (I am sure gwnn could find about 537 threads about what card to play with JTx), but have seen each of the more complex tempo-sensitive Smith situations less often. Hence they are more likely to transmit UI. And agreeing to play a method where you are very likely to transmit UI isn't very nice. That's because UI on defense often goes unpunished, and even if it does, it creates work for everyone.
So I concur that if you are likely to have problems playing Smith in tempo, then you shouldn't agree to play it.
#10
Posted 2011-April-26, 11:29
PrecisionL, on 2011-April-26, 09:35, said:
I assume this as obvious which is why none of my comments concerned trick one.
cherdano, on 2011-April-26, 10:55, said:
There is nothing in this thread about a particular pair having tempo problems with one particular agreement: it is the suggestion that the method should not be played because it will lead to problems compared to other agreements.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#11
Posted 2011-April-26, 11:58
The 'tempo problems' (for me anyway) are remembering which type of Smith I am playing
Playing a Smith echo in tempo isn't really any different from forcing yourself to lead singletons slowly and doubletons quickly. You have to fight your normal tendency and play slower when you have a 'clear' Smith card, and quicker when you have doubt. This tends to even out the tempo.
There are plenty of play situations where you aren't sure what you should play for many reasons. You aren't trying to transmit doubt; but rather you need a little time to work out the right play. When someone takes three minutes to discard something, his partner is in possession of UI, that could be acted on later and thats obviously a rules violation. Yet, when a player takes an extra four seconds at T2, Smith gets singled out. Unfairly IMO.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#12
Posted 2011-April-26, 12:40
What I see happen a lot is that someone is dealt only even cards in a suit he wants to signal for, or his only safe pitch is a suit where he has only odd cards (but which he does not want to signal for). Typically the slow discard indicates that one of these has occurred.
This seems less of a problem with methods like smith where the signal is based on the relative values of the cards (i.e. high card discourage and low encourage, or vice-versa) since there is never a problem of "I do not have the card I need to make the signal I want" -- only that partner may have trouble reading my lowest card as low in some situations (and vice versa).
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#13
Posted 2011-April-26, 13:36
Every one of my partners at some point in time has blown up at me, frustrated because I am overly sensitive to UI situations. Meaning, I go way out of my way to not take inference. More than almost anyone. To a fault, perhaps.
So, given my insanity, I feel somewhat qualified to assess my own experience with UI and Smith. I never see it. I see it all the time in other situations, whether count, attitude, or suit preferemce. Drives me nuts. But, not with Smith.
-P.J. Painter.
#14
Posted 2011-April-26, 13:42
The real problem is that some players don't want to play against anything unfamiliar.
#15
Posted 2011-April-26, 14:17
bluejak, on 2011-April-26, 08:53, said:
Suppose you cash an ace at trick one, and then lead another suit at trick two on which partner plays a small card. Now you can infer things from the speed he plays to that trick. So we should ban attitude signals after trick one.
I think some people are just trying to make life difficult for others.
Yes and no.
As a general principle, I agree with your comments. And with the view already expressed that some people transmit UI with their signalling tempo, and some people don't, and the type of signal may not be relevant.
However, the same comments could be made about dual-meaning signals (e.g. odd encourages, even suit preference) and these are specifically banned in the EBU and other places. My understanding is that they are banned because of the tempo problems with them - there is quite a good chance that you don't have the required e.g. 'high even' card in the suit led to trick one.
So the idea that some signals should not be allowed specifically because they lead to tempo/UI problems is already entrenched in some regulations.
_If_ Smith signals do the same, then they should have the same rule.
Aha, but now you are going to point out that Smith signals are fundamentally different. The tempo issue with dual-meaning signals is the chance of you not have the right card to signal with. A Smith signal is either a high-low or not; no different to any other signal. So they should be treated the same as any other signal.
p.s. I play Smith and I never see tempo issues. We screw up sometimes (mainly on whether a signal is Smith or count) but it's always done in tempo.
#16
Posted 2011-April-26, 14:31
awm, on 2011-April-26, 12:40, said:
What I see happen a lot is that someone is dealt only even cards in a suit he wants to signal for, or his only safe pitch is a suit where he has only odd cards (but which he does not want to signal for). Typically the slow discard indicates that one of these has occurred.
I think odd/even discards do not suffer at all. Because there are several possible suits it is very very very rare to have no suit to discard with. Since the first discard is normally slow anyway, there are no effective tempo issues, unlike odd/even signals, where you have to play a particular suit.
FrancesHinden, on 2011-April-26, 14:17, said:
So the idea that some signals should not be allowed specifically because they lead to tempo/UI problems is already entrenched in some regulations.
_If_ Smith signals do the same, then they should have the same rule.
No problem with this. My argument is that Smith are not especially tempo sensitive compared - for example - with attitude signals.
FrancesHinden, on 2011-April-26, 14:17, said:
Yes, that's my view: Smith is similar to attitude.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#17
Posted 2011-April-26, 17:10
"Dammit, why'd you lead a club? You knew I had J 9 7 and not J 9 8!"
"Look, if you can't get through your head to start your count when Dummy touches the card, not when Declarer calls for the card, then I can't help you. You showed the F'ing 8."
"I counted from the card touch, idiot. You forgot the subtraction for when I touch MY card to set it on the table!"
"Well, you hold your hand under the table. How am I supposed to know when you touch the thing?!??!"
"We need to go back to Meckwell hesitations. That works so much better, anyway."
-P.J. Painter.
#18
Posted 2011-April-27, 04:56
#19
Posted 2011-April-27, 18:11
#20
Posted 2011-April-29, 02:45
Quote
Even after declarer played his card to T1, a pause should be taken so he can't play his next card too quickly.