Phil Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Got to play with someone that could follow suit today. A couple of close decisions kept out of 70-land. In the 7th round we were told by a GOLD LM that our Smith methods (reverse by OL, standard by 3rd hand) were ILLEGAL because it was different methods by partner :lol: A few for you: 1. ♠KJ ♥KJT9 ♦Qxx ♣QTxx. (Pass) - pass - (1♠), 2N (pass) - 3♣ - (pass) - 3♥(pass) - 4♥ - (pass) - 5♣(pass) - ? BTW, feel free to disagree with any of the prior calls 2. ♠Tx ♥Axxx ♦AT9xxx ♣x 1♠ - 1N2♠ - ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 1. You will have to tell me what 2N from partner showed. If minors, then what does his 3♥ bid show? Any cue in a good hand (i.e. 1/2 round control) or is it typically shortness or a fragment? (in say a 0=3=5=5 hand). I'm guessing it's any 1/2 round control, in which case I have an inference that partner has shortness, since he didn't cuebid spades for us. That makes it a pretty easy pass. (If he has xx A AKxxx AKxxx, so be it.) 2. 3♠, not hanging partner if he has a minimum 2♠ call. (As as an aside, it's an easy 4♠ playing intermediate 2♥ and 2♠ openers.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggieb Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 1) 6♣ seems clear to me, partner would never bid this way without first round control in one of the majors. 2) 3♠, not good enough to bid game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwingo Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Smith methods (reverse by OL, standard by 3rd hand) were ILLEGAL What's OL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Smith methods (reverse by OL, standard by 3rd hand) were ILLEGAL What's OL? Opening leader... I think clayton told me this is called tick tock smith or something weird lol, apparantly its standard in some parts of cali. Anyways, I strongly disagree with 4H, that's not a cuebid its trying to play in 4H. Partner is typically 553 when he bids this way. Anyways obviously partner was not 553 given our doubleton spade and their failure to bid but that's definitely what it should show. Now we're guessing a bit but I think we just have to bid slam. Hand 2?! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Smith methods (reverse by OL, standard by 3rd hand) were ILLEGAL What's OL? Opening leader... I think clayton told me this is called tick tock smith or something weird lol, apparantly its standard in some parts of cali. Alarm clock smith. The idea behind it, and the origin of the name, is that if you forget you are playing smith you will probably make the right signal by accident by naturally playing low when the opponents lead a suit. Opening leader usually likes his lead, his partner usually doesn't. Also even if you remember you are less likely to 'waste' a high card. I don't know how true that actually is in practice though hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 I think clayton told me this is called tick tock smith or something weird lol LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Dayou calls it Alarm Clock Smith. I thought I heard Marshall Miles developed it but I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 I thought I heard Marshall Miles developed it but I could be wrong. Yes, he has a lot of pet conventions/bidding theories, and as far as I know, this is one of his. I think there is nothing wrong with the agreement itself, but it is unnecessarily complicated and only provides a very marginal benefit. Definitely a southern California thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 I thought I heard Marshall Miles developed it but I could be wrong. Yes, he has a lot of pet conventions/bidding theories, and as far as I know, this is one of his. I think there is nothing wrong with the agreement itself, but it is unnecessarily complicated and only provides a very marginal benefit. Definitely a southern California thing. The first time I played it it was confusing, but the signaling has a natural feel to it and you don't have to think too hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 I thought I heard Marshall Miles developed it but I could be wrong. Yes, he has a lot of pet conventions/bidding theories, and as far as I know, this is one of his. I think there is nothing wrong with the agreement itself, but it is unnecessarily complicated and only provides a very marginal benefit. Definitely a southern California thing. The first time I played it it was confusing, but the signaling has a natural feel to it and you don't have to think too hard. Yes, I play it with Marshall and it doesn't cause too many problems. It's funny too because I don't even play any kind of Smith with anyone else, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 1. Pard had: ♠x ♥Ax ♦ATxxx ♣AKTxx. I figured 3♥ was a strong hand patterning and I didn't mind putting him in the Moysian with the tap in the short hand at Mps. When he pulled to 5♣, I'm like, "oh, he's cueing over my minimum response, he must have a moose", since I have three huge cards, I'll kick it in 6. Even the worst defenders on the planet couldn't let this one in. Agree with his bidding? 2. At the time I thought this was a 3♠ call at IMPs, but a pass at MPs. He had something like AQxxxx Qxx x AKx, (not quite right, but I know it was some 6313 14 count with ♣AKx. 4-1 was making even with trumps 4-1 onside. I'm thinking I underbid this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 In the 7th round we were told by a GOLD LM that our Smith methods (reverse by OL, standard by 3rd hand) were ILLEGAL because it was different methods by partner That's rubish! You play the same system as partner since you both follow the same logic: "reverse if I'm OL, std if I'm 3rd seat" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 1. Disagree with our first pass. I understand if we had been in 1st seat, but I don't like to give the 3rd seat the upperhand. Although it's an aceless hand, we do have supporting intermediates.I think I also play 3♥ by partner as showing a fragment (3cards) there so 4♥ would be a suggestion to play. Hmm I think I'll also raise this to slam. 2 great queens with a double fit, let's hope partner's got AKAK and a major Ace/void. Good thing we're declaring this.Btw, what were the colours? If we are red, I think I should do more than 3♣. 2. 3♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 In the 7th round we were told by a GOLD LM that our Smith methods (reverse by OL, standard by 3rd hand) were ILLEGAL because it was different methods by partner That's rubish! You play the same system as partner since you both follow the same logic: "reverse if I'm OL, std if I'm 3rd seat" Well she backed off quickly when a small wager was offered LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlam Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 1. Pard had: ♠x ♥Ax ♦ATxxx ♣AKTxx. I figured 3♥ was a strong hand patterning and I didn't mind putting him in the Moysian with the tap in the short hand at Mps. When he pulled to 5♣, I'm like, "oh, he's cueing over my minimum response, he must have a moose", since I have three huge cards, I'll kick it in 6. Even the worst defenders on the planet couldn't let this one in. Agree with his bidding? I don't know how partner could show his hand better, assuming he wanted to make a game-try over 3♣. Is he forced to bid 3♠? Maybe everyone here was wrong to assume partner's sequence showed a slam try?Also, is anyone tempted by bidding 4♣ on the first round? We have 4-card support and a double fit in the minors, so the law says we have to bid 4♣ over 3♠ anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.