Competing over 1M (X).. do it aggressively

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of competing with one of the top players of the Seattle area. NV vs Vul at MP I opened 1S in first chair. Lefty made a TOX and partner, without any hesitation whatsover and with all the confidence in the world bid 2S holding: 652,842,J8542,JT.

Although this raise might be a little on the light side, most experts get in there over 1MX with less than the 5/6 points required for a normal raise. Why? First off, these bids are totally LAW protected. Have an eight card fit, compete to the two level. Note the emphasis on "compete". Don't promise you partner six points out of comp and emerge with 1.

Also, in these sequences a two level major suit bid takes away one or two levels of bidding from the opponents. For example, as in the above case --note that my RHO does not have the one level bid available, nor the jump to 3H. Rho is forced to compete to the three level on a very wide range of hands --almost anything that is not worth a 3S (gf) Q!!! Oh my. Competing light over 1H (X) takes away the 2S invitational jump.

If the layout is foul, only the most experience partnerships can catch you in a X'd contract. A X by the fourth hand is usually TO for the other suits and in order for the TOX'er to X again he/she needs relatively strong values.

Competing on a minimum with a major suit hand over a TOX is just solid expert bridge. However, here's the problem. Last weekend, at imps, my partner made a game try on this hand over my 2S raise. AQJxxx,AT98,Ax,K. I refused the invitation on Jxx,J9xxx,J,Axxx. The problem is obvious...If partner thinks I can have a 1 count, he/she makes a game try. If partner thinks I have a normal "in comp bid" i.e. 7+ more points, he/she jumps to game. The ultimate gaffe was not having discussed the issue.

Lots of expert partnerships have methods to delineate the 3 to a bad 7 point raise from an good 7 to a 10 point raise. Some use a 2D artificial bid for the strong raise, leaving the major support bid for "garbage". Thus 1M (X) 2D! means: "I have a solid raise to 2M, pard, says nothing about diamonds". Some use a transfer system to announce a good raise.

All systems protect the direct natural raise as "weak"- 1M (X) 2M! garbage. Why? it totally takes away bidding room from opps, it's law protected and very hard to catch if it's wrong (i.e. the layout is foul). Hope this is somewhat helpful. This is a necessary discussion to have with all your growing/learning partnerships.

Leading A, K and Q's against NT

Hi All,

There are as many discussions about leading A/K/Q against no-trump as there are bridge players. I thought I'd get my opinion down on the matter and we can use these methods to win bridge competitions. Too fun.

Suppose your opponents have landed in 3N and you hold something like AKJT(x) in a suit. Cool. Now, you would not want to lead low, or the J and see Qx in the dummy. Nor would you like it if declarer had Qx. So with these types of power hands I lead the A. It requires my partner to unload the Q if he/she has it --so I'm not left to wonder. If he/she does not have that card, I require partner to give me a count card. Now, I know when the Q is falling in declarer's hand or if it's better that I abandon the suit and let partner lead through declarer later. In the meantime, partner knows my holding and can place some serious defensive points!

Now, suppose opponents have landed in 3N and you decided that it is optimum to lead from these holdings: AKxx, AKx, KQx, etc. Now, I lead the K! This requires partner to give me an attitude card. Do you like the suit I chose, pard, do you have an honor or length and shall I continue.

On every convention card you have the holding KQT9 in the "honor card lead" sections. It is usually advantageous to lead the Q from this holding requiring partner to unload the J if he/she has it. If partner does not unload the J, it is adventagious for partner to give you an attitude card. Sure, it would be good for partner to give a count card so that you know when the J will fall but here's the rub. One leads the Q in many situations --QJTx, QJ9x, QJx. For all these leads you obviously don't need partner to unload the J --you're staring at it. However you do need to know if you can continue the suit safely. On Q leads I require partner to unload the J or give me an atittude card. Heaven forbid I lead from QJ9x continually into declarer's AKT. Ugly. An attitude card from pard denoting honor cards in the suit or length and I/we can defend much better.

Hope this makes some sense. Not all people adopt these treatments so make sure it is a discussion point with your serious partners.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Isolde

1C (1H) X (P) --Some Nifty Actions by Opener!

Hi all

I wanted to share with you some expert secrets of these sequences. This weekend, the bridge Gods gave me these tickets: KQ4,T98,K84,KQT9 NV at mp second seat. There you go, an aceless four by three thirteen count but probably warrants an opening. Hey, at least you have a T,9 spot. So, 1C (at least you can stand the lead). Lefty bids 1H and partner makes a negative X. Ok, there you are. What are you most likely to do? Bid 1S. You don't have four of them, but you don't even have as little as Jxx in the heart suit and your clubs...well probably not rebiddable given you only have four.

Now suppose you had this hand: KQ43,K98,K8,QT98 -This time you have four spades all right, but a nasty HK underneath the heart bidder. Ohhhhh, not so good. Again, 1S.

Now let's give you a better hand for the negative X. Let's say you opened 1C on KQ43,43,KT4,KQT9. Compared to the previous hands we've discussed, this is a beaut.

Experts bid an immediate 2S on this hand. Why?

1) To delineate this hand from the subminimum three card spade hand and/or honor values underneath the heart overcall.
2) They realize that with these hands you clearly belong at the two level anyway, due to the nature of the fit and the purity of the honor cards. If you don't jump there immediately, there is a good chance that opponents will push you there anyway.

Thus, over 1m (1H) X (P), a 1S bid says: "Given our combined resources, pard, we now have a subminum holding given the heart overcall. Please slow down the your assessment of the level at which you place the contract or compete.

a 2S bid says: "Full opening values, no heart honors wasted, and four card support".

Had my partner and I discussed these sequences, we might not have been in game opposite AJ98,642,AQJ2,75. And competed safely to the three level only.

Hope this is helpful. Ask if you have any questions.

The Reverse --its secrets revealed

Hi all,

It usually isn't long in a bridge journey before one becomes acquainted with the term "reverse". Hmmmm, I know this is a gear in my car, but what does it mean in terms of my bridge vocabulary.

I came across it this way. I had a very strong hand (two suiter) and opened it 1C. Partner bid 1S and I jump-shifted into hearts. When my dummy came down, a seasoned player said: "Isolde, you don't have to jump to show this hand". Thus, started my study of the "reverse" concept as it manifests itself in bridge bidding.

There are several (confusing) definitions of reverses but there are two which I like the best:

1) One reverses when one bids a higher ranking suit at the two level without a jump than one opened. Note, responder has only promised 6 points. Thus.....1C 1S, 2H is a reverse.

a) 1C 1H, 1S is not (second round of bidding does not start at the two level).
b)1D 1H, 2C is not (second suit is lower ranking than the first).
c) 1C 1D, 2H is not (note the jump)

2) One reverses when one asks responder to prefer the opened suit at the three level without a jump. Note, responder has only promised six points. If the bidding goes 1H 1N, 2S and responder prefers hearts, he/she has to do this at the three level. Thus, a reverse,

There are several musts about reverses and its best to practice them always:

1) Reverses show extra values. If you ask responder to pref the suit at the three level you should have combined resources to handle a contract at the three level. Reverse with a 13 point hand and responder owns only six--the pref at the three level will have to be played with 19 high card points between you. Not good. Have really good playing strength or at least 16 hcp as your extra values.

2) Reverses are shape-showing, that is the first suit is always longer than the second one --always. I had an opponent bid this hand 1C 1S, 2D against me this weekend. This hand was 4,A85,AQJT7,AK43. Note that diamonds are longer than clubs so this hand should have been shown through a strong jump shift, i.e. 1D 1S,3C.

3) One always promises one more bid after a reverse. Don't pass. (unless partnership agreements override this dictum).

There are many responder methods over reverses, some more standard than others. I have discussed them with most of my partners but will leave that for another day. Also, a serious discussion about handling reverses in competition needs to happen in every partnership.

I'd be happy to field any questions regarding this subject.

Happy bridging.

Isolde

Bridge learning curve analyzed

Hi all,

The other day I was asked by one of my partners if we were "incompatible". Hmm the thought had not occurred to me. True, we had misfired and defended 3HXX making. We had also slipped up and let 2SX make. We languished in 2N making four for a major imp loss. I suppose my partner had a right to question the "incompatibility" factor.

As a seasoned player I know what incompatibility is, but from my POV it had little to do with these poor results. From my assessment, right or wrong, it was but a fact of performing at different spots on the bridge learning curve.

Let me explain using two example hands from last weekend's set. Curiously enough both hands involved competing over nt with "red suited" hands. And, as "luck" has it for illustration purposes, in both sets and partnerships we were competing using suction methods.

At imps at all nv I held this gem: Q92,AJ97,AQ32,T6 and passed over a 1N opening. My opponent at the other table launched in there with a 2S suction bid, requiring to show these two suits at the three level. It would not occur to me to try anything with this balanced hand over nt because the hand is not shapely enough. Certainly not forcing to the three level. "Shape" for bidding over nt precludes 4333, 4432, 5333 hands and starts mostly with 54 patterns. (You and the opponent may want to review my blog/Trumpet article on the matter.)

The same weekend the bridge Gods dealt me these tickets: 62,J8732,KJT954,v all vul at mp. Note the appreciable "shape" in the reds. I thought briefly about 2S but discounted that because the suits were very unequal in length and strength. I chose to show "diamonds". I was commended by that decision by a true expert player --showing diamonds was very much more "good bridge" than showing reds. However, here is the rub. The expert preferred passing with the entire hand and waiting until a nv condition? Why? Because competing in suits lacking in appreciable high cards wasn't his standard MO or good bridge.

So what am I saying put more succinctly? That as we grow in our bridge journey, communication becomes more concrete. It will take a while as long as you're "compatible" initially, and remain so in other ways of that journey.

Level 1: Competing over nt with reds Q92,AJ97,AQ32,T6
Level 2: Competing over nt with reds 64,J8762,KJT954,v
Level 3: Competing over nt vul at mp with diamonds 64,J8762,KJT954,v
Level 4: Pass and wait for nv conditions.

Do you get the picture? It's a process based solely on communication levels and the strength of that communication. Enjoy the journey with your proteges, partners, teachers and mentors! I certainly have. But if you want to learn the best, play with the best against the best. And work hard. You always want that opportunity to compare your actions with the finest! ~~~and learn their language.

I'd be happy to answer any quesitons.

More Sequences over 1N: 1N 2N -relay to 3C

Now that you've all rested from my MSS sequences and, of course, know them by heart, I'll fill in some hand patterns as responder that we haven't discussed yet.

I usually play that 1N 2N is an automatic relay to 3C. Period. Partner can say alert! and bid 3C --that's it. Now, that would cover the club signoffs. Responder passes and has set the contract at 3C.

There is one other important hand pattern that you can describe with this relay: the 4441 pattern game forcing. What you do, is relay opener to 3C then bid your shortness.

1) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3D --shortness in diamonds, thus 4414
2) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3H --shortness in hearts, thus 4144
3) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3S --shortness in spades, thus 1444
4) 1N 2N!, 3C! 3N --shortness in clubs, thus 4441

The questions begs, what does one do with the basic "1N 2N invite to 3 w/out a four card major" sequence? All invitational sequences with or without a four card major go through Stayman. If partner responds to Stayman with a 2D bid, bid 2N. Partner now knows you have an invitational with or without a four card major. Opener doens't really care whether you have one or not since opener has denied a major. If opener bids 2H over your Stayman query, and you have an invitational hand with four spades, you must bid 2S at this point. Opener has not had the opportunity to fess up to a four card spade suit so responder must check back. If the bidding goes 1N 2C, 2H 2S responder has specifically an invitational hand with four spades. Opener can take it from there.

Game forcing hands with minors I handle by going through Stayman also. This means that opener once again does not know whether responder has a major or not when it goes 1N 2C, 2X 3m. Oh well.

Hope this is somewhat helpful. Ask if you have any questions.

Minor Suit Stayman --Sequences described

The very first convention I learned was Stayman, checking back for majors over nt. You, too no doubt (after blackwood, that is). About 30 master points later, I was asked to learn Minor Suit Stayman. Cool, I had mastered Stayman so figured this was a piece of cake.

As per usual when learning new conventions, some of the memorization of the early sequences is the easy part, i.e. 1N 2S asks opener to bid a four card minor and says nothing about "spades". However, how this query system fits into existing sequences, how the information gleaned is useful in determining the potential of the hand, how to handle pesky opponents and their actions in the bidding. These are all sequella learning points that one needs to discuss, explore and sometimes tweak!

I use MSS in tandem with a convention where 2N relays to 3C to describe various responder hands. Because I don't want to overwhelm this discussion with two new treatments, I'll defer the 1N 2N! discussion to a later blog -suffice it to say we aren't going to cover all the responder type hands one encounters in this treatise when partner opens 1N. Ready, set go!

First off, when responder asks for a four card minor by bidding 2S over 1N, the basic responses are thus:

2N --sorry pard, I have no four card minor
3C--I have a four card club suit (says nothing about strength or suit quality)
3D--I have a four card diamond suit (says nothing about strength or suit quality)

One queries opener for such minor suit holdings with four hand-types that through these sequences are well described to opener.

1) Diamond sign off, responder has long, weak diamonds. After opener bids 3D, pass. If opener bids 3C, bid 3D and opener drops the auction there. If opener bids 2N, bid 3D and opener drops the auction there.

2) Responder has weak 5/5 hands, minors. After opener bids 3C, pass. After opener bids 3D, pass. If opener bids 2N, bid 3C and opener is required to pass or correct depending on which minor suit is better.

3) Responder has a game forcing hand 5/4,5 in minors. After opener bids a minor, confirm the minor and make slam try if appropriate. Otherwise, bid game. If opener bids 2N, responder bids shortness (major). Opener has now described a 5/4,5 game forcing hand with shortness in a major.

4) Responder has a slamish 5422 hand with minors. After opener bids 2N, 3C or 3D bid 3N.

If there is anything I need to add, please let me know. Otherwise, look forward to the next blog piece on 1N 2N sequences.

Rule of 11

Hi All,

Most of you are advanced enough to have come across the rule of 11. Surely some of your advanced partners/teammates/mentors have mentioned it once or twice, or you've read about it in some bridge book/column somewhere. As a growing bridge player I ignored this basic analytical tool too long. I, no doubt, was more involved with learning systems, getting to know partners, learning rules and competitive strategies to bother with this basic skill.

I've since lost my naivite and perform that analysis automatically every single time a partner or opponent fesses up to a "fourth best" lead. Here's how it works.

What you do is subtract the spot card that hits the table from the number 11 and it denotes how many outstanding cards there are higher than the spot card that hit the table. So, what you do is count the number of cards in the disclosed hand and your own hand, subtract that number from the result of the difference obtained in the previous subtraction process and voila, you know the remaining number of cards higher than the original led card in the undisclosed hand?

Clear as mud? Let's go through an example. The bidding was simple. 1S 1N!,3N. Cool, the H7 hit the table to this dummy: AJT64,T8,AQ,AK73 and this is my hand. K7,J652,T972,Q42. Immediately, without a moment's hesitation the math starts: 11-7 =4. There are four outstanding cards greater than the 7 in the remaining three hands. I count three that I can see (HT, H8, HJ) which means that the undisclosed hand, my rho has one card higher than a 7. This one is easier than most. Since lefty does not hold AKQ in the suit (or else he/she would not have led fourth best) rho must have one of those cards. I play the h8 and sure enough, rho rises with the Q. I wait for a lower card back than the 7 (or perhaps another suit) but something funny happens. Rho plays the HK. Given the math, he/she should not have that card --that would be two cards higher than the 7 spot which is impossible unless lho did not lead fourth best. Hmmm, I played low again and lefty now produces the 9. So lefty has the 9,7 and didn't lead like he/she had a doubleton. Apparently he/she led from A97 (third best). And so it was, I ducked that next card and the A popped on air.

A couple of hands further, there was a like situation. Uncomfortably, we had hit 3N on these cards and the S7 hit the table. Here's my dummy: 8652,A5,J7,AK875 and here's my hand: AQJ4,K963,QT6,32. Immediately the arithmetic started. 11-7 is four. I see four spades higher than my spot card in the combined dummy and declarer hands: SA, SQ, SJ and S8. Rho followed with the ST a card he/she could not hold if the lead were from "fourth best". I figured it might be a doubleton lead and confidently finessed once again for the SK. Wrong, rho had lead form K973; i.e third best -no wonder the original math did not work.

I encourage you to practice this analytical manipulation so it becomes automatic and part of your tool box whether partner or your opponents lead the suit. Trust me, it gives a huge clue as to the flow of the hand when you can figure it out. Thereby, don't make this an arduous, laborious task when you play. Drill and memorize those two digit combos that add up to 11. 83 74 65 56 47 38; just like your third grade math teacher would have liked. Your brain is needed for much more important calculations during any serious bridge competition.

Good luck, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

1C 1H, 1S --forcing or not?

Sometimes in a competition there is a major theme that presents itself in multiple times and in multiple ways. Have you discussed the title auction in your partnerships? When John and I prepared to play one of the top flight teams last week, our opponents were discussing whether the above auction was forcing or not. Some thought it was (their teammates) and our particular opponents were of the other opinion. Non forcing! I told John that I was happy that we had discussed the auction thoroughly and weren't going to get mixed up this set or ever! Copied ver batem from our system notes:
**********
**********

1C 1D, 1H
1C 1D, 1S
1C 1H, 1S
1D 1H, 1S


–only passable if you were ashamed of your first bid or bidding out of fright..

*********
*********
So three days forward we face the Lusky team --of all things and my partner responds 1H to my one diamond opening. I rebid 1S although came really close to just bidding 2H and getting on with life. Partner passed. Did she meet the specs of the Lusky/Knaap system notes? My hand: AQxx,Qxx.KJTx,xx Dummy: T9x,Txxxx,Ax,xxx There you are, should have gone with my intuition! Extra credit --what do you expect the Villain to lead on this auction. And if he doesn't lead "it" why not.

Mid-hand carding -pinpoint the communication process!

I mentioned in one of my previous posts that one of the biggest sections of your system notes might be the section headed by "carding". Indeed it is an important part of the communication scheme, essential to figure out who has what when on defense you have precious little time to develop your tricks. After all, the opps have announced the balance of power or a source of tricks due to a powerful trump suit.

There will be times when you wish to fool your declarer, knowing your partner can figure stuff out, but we'll defer that to when we've all won the blue ribbons once or twice. Before that, assume that good communication between you and your partner will foil declarer's plans every single time, or at least won't let you drop the overtrick.

Mid-hand carding has it's own unique rules. Whether playing standard or udca, the midhand carding remains the same unless specified different within the partnership:

1) In general I give attitude (udca or standard per agreement) on the suits we lead. I give a count card on the suits declarer attacks. This remains true throughout the hand after the opening lead on non-trump plays.

2) I you lead a suit mid-hand, you lead low from interest. So, if you hold an honor in the suit, lead low; if you hold junk, lead some high card. It tells your partner where your sources of tricks might be for the defense. For example, suppose you hold 973 in one suit and AQ5 in another and you don't see a K of your strong suit in dummy. Exit the 7 of the off suit telling partner "don't lead this suit back, think of something else". Partner will figure it out.

3) If the attitude of the suit is known lead a count card "fourth best". Suppose you lead an A and see the K in dummy and partner encourages most likely holding the Q. --lead back a "fourth best" remaining count card. Suppose you led the A against a preempt from AT742 and partner encourages with the K in dummy and you agree. Now lead the count card 4 "fourth best" from the original holing. Why? So the pair knows what's cashing and you can make appropriate switches. Remember attitude is known.

One would continue with the 2 from A1042 or the 7 from A72. Note that these are the same cards one would return if partner led the suit to you and you were returning the suit.


4) One of the favorite things expert players like to do is run their long suit so the opponents are forced to guess what to save. I haven't been caught in that a long time --Know why? My partnerships give a clear attitude signal at the first opportunity. "I'm saving/discarding this suit partner". This card is now followed by a count card (odd or even number) Most of my partnerships figure it out from there.

5) Make sure to discuss what to do with a singleton in the dummy. My preference is to continue "attitude". A discouraging card means I want you to switch to the suit in dummy where you can see tricks coming for our side. An unusual high card means "make an unusual shift, partner", most likely to the strong suit in dummy --for a ruff or isolation or something. Make sure to discuss this however, not every partnership prefers this method.

A fun thing to do is go over a set or two you've played with your favorite parnter and talk about carding and what message you are conveying as you lead, pitch and follow. You'll be amazed by how smooth that conversation piece is once the kinks get worked out.

Hope this helps. Ask if you have questions!

Balancing actions after two passes!

Everyone knows pretty quickly that bids in different positions take on different meanings. Take for example the pretty innocuous 1N bid. In opening position it signifies 15-17 hcp and a balanced hand (standard treatment). As an overcall, it denotes 15-18 hcp, as response to a minor 6-9, a major 6-11 and in the balancing chair; voila! 11-14.

There are a whole cadre of bids after the bidding goes 1x P P that take on different meanings when made in this position. One of the reasons we alter these bids is that there is already something extremely significant we know when the bidding goes 1x P P.

1) Responder has less than 5 hcp.
2) Partner could not make a TOX or overcall –what does that mean?
3) Responder doesn’t think the opponents have a huge trump fit.


Given all of that, actions in the balancing chair take on a different flavor from immediate overcalls. These actions can be separated into two categories: 1) unpassed hand 2) passed hand.

Unpassed hand:

Over 1M or 1m openings, a 1N balance means 11-14 hcp. Some people play systems on, other systems off. Make sure to come to an agreement with your pard. Here are some further bids.

1N 11-14
X and 1N 15-17
2N 18-20
X and 2N 21+

Jumps in suits are value-showing. Remember you’re preempting no-one here, rather engaging in your own constructive sequences. So two level and three level bids show six card suits and values. Eleven hcp if a single jump, more if a double jump.

Q bids.

1m P P 2m also shows at minimum constructive values (opening hand) as opposed to the preempt junk you bids in direct seat; Majors 1M P P 2M (same major) is Constructive Michaels showing the other major and a minor.

There are some hands which are terribly difficult to show in this position. Those are the strong one suited or two suited hands (very strong) where passing a TOX might not be optimum. Ex. AKQxxxx,KQJ,Ax,x over 1C or AKJxx,Kx,x,AKJxx over 1D. For these you might manufacture a Q bid then jump in some suit!

Passed hand:

Since we don’t have strong nt hands to show, 2N now is unusual for the lower unbid suits. i.e. P, (1D) P (P) 2N shows clubs and hearts –less than an opening hand. Duh.


Encore Performance

Try not to balance rich in lho's suit. Think our dear instructor Tony Glynne used the word "never" three times when describing this concept. Look at number 2 above, partner, known to be short, did not make a TOX nor overcalled a suit. What makes you think you belong in the auction? Also, if you have a fit with lho and partner has a fit with lho, perhaps opps have a fit elsewhere. Don't balance them into their better fit. Sit back quietly, pass and defend well!

Hope this straightens out some confusion –because without discussion there will be confusion. Trust me, and I've lost the mp, imps and events to prove it. Good luck

On hesitations...

....It was thus, I was deep in thought about the entire hand, my proposed defense and our carding methods. I held two clubs in my hand. I hesitated on the first club play but the real 'call the director' error was the hesitation on my second club play (my one and only card left) Here, is my guidance regarding that incident and the suggestion for rectification.Much too good not to share with the rest of you! Enjoy learning from my mistake.************

From John...

There are times when it is appropriate to do one's thinking about the hand on defense and other times when it is not (or when if you do, you must tell declarer that you are thinking about the whole hand, not this trick). Obviously, when you are on lead you can think all you want to before leading. You can also generally think all you want when you are deciding whether to win a trick (if you have a choice of plays) or when you are deciding what to discard (although it would be improper to hesitate simply to make declarer think that you have a discarding problem), or when you have a decision about whether or not to cover declarer's card (although again, only if you have a real choice of plays). And it's OK to take some time at trick one as opening leader's partner to think about the hand, although it is courteous to announce that you are thinking about the hand if that is what you are doing.

But there are some 'time-sensitive' situations when you simply must play in tempo when you have no significant choice of plays from the standpoint of trick-taking potential. Those include the following:

1. Declarer has or may have a 'finesse or drop' guess, as in this case (and yes, once she played the ace on the first club trick, it was apparent that it was at least possible that she had such a guess).

2. Declarer leads a card that you may or may not want to cover, e.g., dummy has K9xx and declarer leads the 10, or dummy has the A10xx and declarer leads the J.

3. Declarer leads low toward a holding like the KJ.

In those situations, when declarer leads at the critical moment and you hesitate, declarer will reasonably think that you have something to think about that is germane to a decision about what to play to this trick. If you find that you have hesitated about something else than what to play to this trick, the ethical thing to do is to say before playing or as you play 'I have no problem on this trick' or 'I was thinking about the whole hand, not this trick' (assuming that this is true--of course one should not say this if declarer has caught you napping in a cover/noncover situation). This is particularly the case if you hesitate when you only have one card in your hand that you could legally play to the trick.

Now Smith Echo creates some choices on defense that are a little different from standard signalling. I can understand your confusion about whether to echo in this situation--I can see arguments in both directions. The best time to be thinking about this would be at trick 1, i.e, don't turn your own card over until you have decided whether to echo on what declarer leads. However, having not done so, it was probably, but just barely, OK to do so at trick 2 when declarer led the ace, since obviously you were not going to be taking that trick. Note that it really wouldn't have been OK if declarer had led low toward the KJ10, since now the hesitation would have suggested that you had the club A. So if declarer had led low and you had hesitated about what to play from 85, that would have been potentially problematic, although not necessarily, since your hesitation might not affect declarer's play, particularly if she had the ace.

The point I am trying to make here is that in these time-sensitive situations, declarer will interpret a hesitation as meaning that you have something to think about that is germane to trick-taking, not that you are thinking about whether or not to give count or whether or not to make a Smith Echo. And if it turns out otherwise, declarer is going to be justifiably upset and may call the director, at all levels of the game. And if it turns out that you hesitated when you had only one legal card to play to the trick, that is really going to cause a problem. So if you find yourself hesitating when you have no trick-taking issue, and particularly when you have only one card you could play, you need to say something to make sure that declarer is not deceived.

So one thing about playing Smith Echo is that you do have to be on top of it, and thinking all the time about whether you are going to echo or not. Now against declarers who understand Smith Echo, they are probably going to understand what you are thinking about when they lead the A and you hesitate, so you probably have no problem there. When you hesitate on the second round, that is a whole other kettle of fish. I understand the argument 'why would I hesitate with the Q?' But the other side of that is 'why on earth would you hesitate when you only have one club left?' And I have seen plenty of people hesitate with Qx left in hopes that declarer would prematurely call a card from dummy or play a card from his hand.

If you want to read the bridge laws about this, you can look at Law 73.D on the ACBL website. They basically say that we should all try to maintain a steady tempo, that we should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of our side, but that declarer draws inferences at his/her own risk.

3 Level Interference over NT

The opponents never leave you alone. Partner and I were playing online and Partner opened 1S. (3C). There you are. Now what.

First if you are a passed hand: Bid what you think is the optimum contract. Remember that no call is forcing after passing so if you want to show your six card suit before offering four card support, don't. You may just get passed in the new suit and there you are. If you are an unpassed hand. A new suit is forcing to game.

If you have no support and less than game going values, pass, wait for pard to X in or lho to raise or something.

Three level free bids force to game or 4m (I believe) i.e. strong actions. If you want to raise the major, do it thus: 4M is still preemptive. 3M is anything from a good constructive raise to a bad limit raise. 4 of the preempt suit is a Major suit raise stating that you would have gone to game without the preempt based on values.

If you look at your hand when pard opens and say "this is a hand that is going to game" (or more) Q bid the 3 level preempt at the four level. This way opener can advance that auction based on the way you made your major suit raise. This was taught to me by Bill Hardy, certainly capable of adequately explaining such standard expert strategies. Use them often! and Have Fun!