[kenrexford]

In case you do not know what "Smith Echo" means, its simplistic definition is an attitude signal given as a pip played in the opponents' suit but showing attitude for the suit I or partner selected for the lead. Positive attitude discourages option #2, and negative attitude encourages option #2.

In regular Smith Echo, a high pip encourages the lead, low discouraging. In Reverse Smith, a high pip discourages, low encourages.

The "Echo" refers to the second pip, clarifying the first.

Anyway, I keep seeing hand after hand at high level play where the Smith Echo would have made the defense easy, but, apparently not played, the defense floundered. I am curious if any do not use Smith and have a reason.

BTW, I prefer Reverse Smith, all the time (even suit contracts).

[SoTired]

In Steve Robinson's Washington Standard, in a book full of cool tools, Smith Echo was mentioned (along with Support Dbls) that if you got nothing else out of the book, if you played Smith Echo the book would have been worth it.

[mike777]

Smith Echo is famous for hestitations and other active ethics issues.

[Double !]

i think i played it once.
not enough knowledge about pros and cons of signal to offer an opinion
i don't like to waste spots, and i have other priorities for initial card played in opps suit.

sorry

DHL

[Apollo81]

vs suit contracts pard and I play the 1st signal on opps lead is suit preference. Works well. We play Smith vs NT too, but it seems to matter less.

[FrancesHinden]

I use Smith against NT only (count is too useful in suit contracts, and anyway my approach to opening leads against suit contracts means that the attitude is usually known anyway).

I find it very useful, but having played it for a number of years I have also found it needs a great deal of discussion around things such as
- under what circumstances is attitude to the opening lead considered 'known' after trick 1, and Smith doesn't apply
- when do you give count in the suit played instead
- what is the 'neutral' signal: if you aren't sure whether you want to encourage the suit led or not, which signal do you give

[Walddk]

Reverse Smith by both, against NT only.

Roland

[mikeh]

I was a slow convert, but now play reverse smith against notrump only: it has significantly less ulitility against suits.

I have not personally found nor heard of smith giving rise to hestitations or other ethical issues... unlike odd/even, for example.

[SoTired]

Maybe a better definition of Smith Echo is needed.
1) It only applies when count in the next suit led by declarer is not needed.
2) It enc/disc the opening lead suit by showing/denying additional honor or useful extra length. I have never seen the "useful extra length" hand.

For example, as third hand, you play the J from QJx and declarer wins the king. You would give a positive Smith Echo to show that you have another honor. If instead you had Jxx, you would give a negative Smith Echo. If partner led from A10xx and gains the lead, only a Smith Echo signal can prevent partner from making a guess.

[Free]

I don't use it, not familiar enough with it... It probably can be useful in some occasions, especially in NT, but don't you sometimes lose anything else when playing it?

[kenrexford]

The question is often raised, with respect to some bids and/or carding agreements, as to whether something is lost when you use a different technique.

This concern is somewhat legitimate, to a point. Suppose that you start with the premise that COUNT is king. If you add in attitude signals, you cannot do both with one card and thereby "lose" count specificity, but we all do this because Attitude is often more critical, in a given situation, than count, or at least more immediately critical. Similar objections can be made to suit preference signals.

The issue when playing a "new gadget" on defense is to determine what is more critical. Smith offers the exact same concerns, but it re-tailors the specific situation. One can look at Smith as either attitude for the opening lead, or as suit preference between that suit and the next logical best.

Now switch to a different situation. Partner leads a top diamond. Do you play attitude or count? I would imagine that you choice depends upon the situation. Your first diamond pip is perhaps attitude if dummy looks one way and the auction was such-and-such, but count if dummy looks different and the auction was different, right?

Now to Smith. The pip in their suit is either count or attitude. However, attitude for their suit is obvious -- you dislike that suit. Attitude for another suit, the suit we attacked on lead, is probably more critical. So, we switch the attitude option to attitude for our suit, not theirs. This being done, the pip is still either count or attitude, depending upon dummy's holdings and such-and-such auction. Thus, if count seems more important, count is shown. If attitude for our suit is more important, Smith shows attitude. You think, just as always.

The sole "differences" between Smith and no Smith are (1) count is not always the signal, and (2) the attitude signal is not for the suit played but for a known surrogate suit -- our suit.

Note that one factor in having count outweigh attitude (for our suit) with Smith is whether attitude (for our suit) is already known. If so, Smith is redundant. In that situation, partner should read a low or high pip simply as count.

This is, of course, unless "Imbedded Smith Echoes" are used, but that is an entirely different and strange story.

[ArcLight]

>I have not personally found nor heard of smith giving rise to hestitations or other ethical issues... unlike odd/even, for example.

Bobby Hamman calls it a "foul convention" and says it gives rise to hesitations in his book "At the Table".

[Free]

"Bridge, Zia and me" also mentions several ethical issues with hesitations, including Smith echo....

[kenrexford]

Hesitations are hesitations. We all need to be wary of them. That being said, my suspicion is that Smith Echo irritates people because it erases tells from tempo.

What I mean by this. You have a two-way finesse in spades. You lead the J toward K109x in dummy. As with all of us, you then eye LHO for any slight hitch, any nervous shake, whatever. Damn him!!! His card says Smith Echo, so his ever-so-slight hitch was in his decision to encourage or discourage the lead, having nothing to do with the Queen.

Is it the hitch, or is it actually the removal of your ability to spot hitches as Queen-indicators?

[ArcLight]

>Is it the hitch, or is it actually the removal of your ability to spot hitches as Queen-indicators?

Ken, Its not us who are saying that. Its Hamman and (I assume ) Zia or Rosenberg.

>Hesitations are hesitations. We all need to be wary of them. That being said, my suspicion is that Smith Echo irritates people because it erases tells from tempo.

I don't see how you can make that statement without seeing what Hammans or Rosenberg/Zias exact objections are.

My "irritation" would be having to stop play for a bit to ask the opps to explain reverse Smith to me, and then have to ask a few more questions.
The opps are sharing information and I want to be in on it.
Its probably equally annoying to my opps to have to explain the convention and then answer a few more questions.

[akhare]

It (reverse) works pretty well against NT IMO. In a nutshell, following low-high in the first suit led by declarer, says that you would like partner to continue the opening lead suit. Of course, common sense should hold sway over any convention and there are situations where it's more important to give correct count in declarer's suit than worry about the echo.

I haven't noticed any ethical issues arising from the use of the convention, but I mostly play online and the reason behind tempo breaks are anybody's guess...

[rbforster]

You didn't mention the version of Smith that I play (against NT only). I play Reverse Echo by opening leader but normal Smith Echo by his partner. I didn't know a good name for this convention, but I've heard it go by "Alarm Clock Smith".

opening leader:

• low = I like my lead (typical)
  
• high = I now dislike my lead (more unusual)

opening leader's partner:

• low = I don't like partner's lead (typical)
  
• high = I do like my partner's lead (more unusual)

Just like upside count signals make sense since you can more easily afford the low card from doubletons, this version of Smith means that the most likely card to be played by either partner will be their lowest. Only when they have an unusual message to convey to their partner will they play their higher card. The idea is that your signals will be right most of the time, even when you're stuck with Qx or Jx in declarer's suit.

[Winstonm]

O.K., so you are playing Smith Echo and partner leads the 3 of a suit, 4th best.
Dummy holds 76, you J954. Your jack forces the K. When declarer leads a side suit, do you encourage or discourage?

If partner has led from A10832, you should encourage. If he has led from A1083, you should discourage. A hesitation tells partner your exact starting holding, as this is the only possible holding that can cause doubt as to the proper signal. If you hesitate, partner can have no doubt about the right play from either holding.

This was Hamman's argument in "At the Table" against allowing Smith to be used.

This is also different from odd/even hesitations - an odd/even hesitation may show a problem, but it can't show the exact starting holding.

[Stephen Tu]

You discourage, because echoing promises the Q.

If one is ethical, you make up your mind whether you are going to echo or not at trick 1 during your normal pause before playing, you would never have to hesitate at the actual time to make the play. Smith echo is not inherently unethical IMO. If partner does hesitate, then opening leader can compensate by using active ethics and not banging down the ace when there are reasonable other lines.

I don't see why Smith has to be disallowed, there are plenty of other situations where defensive hesitation can convey UI. If you notice the UI, just try really hard not to use it! And plan ahead in defense so that you don't have to hitch, both to give declarer no info, and not give partner ethical problems.