Bridge
Dear Mr. Wolff: My wife and I play new-suit responses to simple one-level overcalls as constructive but nonforcing if the overcall is at the one-level. However, after reading a recent column of yours, we are wondering if playing a new suit as forcing might be more useful. Does it matter whether the opening is a strong or weak call? – Spit and Polish, Salinas, Calif.
Answer: The logic of playing new suits as nonforcing at the one-level is that with a good hand responder can jump while keeping the auction under control. Additionally, overcaller does not promise a good hand. The logic of playing responses to two-level overcalls (whether of an opening bid or a pre-empt) as forcing is that partner has promised a decent hand. In short, play responses to overcalls as forcing except for one-level overcalls.
Dear Mr. Wolff: I held ♠ A-10-8-7-3-2, ♥ 2, ♦ Q-9-6, ♣ A-3-2. My LHO opened one heart, raised to four by my RHO. I decided to bid four spades, down only one, but four hearts would have been set by at least two tricks. Was I out of line here? – Red-Hot Mama, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Answer: I like your choice: An opponent’s jump to four hearts often acts as a transfer to four spades. Here you had two decent chances (either they could make something or you could), and the cost of the insurance was not excessive.
Dear Mr. Wolff: Do you have any comment on the Smith Echo, a signal at no-trump to tell partner you like his lead or that you do not like your own? – Mad Scientist, Duluth, Minn.
Answer: Let’s assume that your signal does not relate to one of declarer’s suits. However, quite often, giving count in declarer’s suit is relevant. The Smith Echo is potentially useful, but one of the main problems is that it must be made in tempo, and the decision to give a Smith Echo often seems to cause the defenders a lot of mental anguish.
Dear Mr. Wolff: Recently an opponent revoked, and my partner called it, but my opponent claimed that since the cards were not turned over, it didn’t count as a revoke. On a second occasion the opponent revoked, caught it before the cards were turned over, but after all had played to the trick. Now he claimed that since he caught it, it didn’t count as a revoke. Is the revoke established in either case? – Whistle Blower, Willoughby, Ohio
Answer: A revoke that is corrected before one member of the guilty partnership plays to the next trick produces no trick-penalty. But the card played mistakenly is a penalty card, and the penalty-card rules apply. They are tough to summarize, but essentially declarer can often forbid or demand the lead of a suit if the opponents are on lead, or the card must be played at the first opportunity. Incidentally, penalty cards do not apply to declarer.