Help
So, maybe 8 years ago, I thought up a defensive signalling strategy that was a tad out there, apparently. The idea was rather simple to articulate but perhaps difficult to employ.
The idea. With the exception of multi-purpose signals (dislike this and like that; I have shortness and I can ruff), which sometimes are not really multi-purpose, and with the exception of exotic signals (three odds and an even), the three main signal types are:
(1) Count
(2) Attitude
(3) Suit Preference
The idea was that one of these three signalling types will answer a question. The question to be answered, in principle, should be known to both partners, if they can defend well. Each sees the dummy, sees his own hand, knows the contract, knows the scoring form, knows the auction, etc. Thus, it seems that the QUESTION should be known by both partners. Sure, there may be many questions, but the priority of importance or the imminence of importance of individual questions seems to be something that good partners can figure out.
As a simple example, consider a dummy with a running suit that lacks the Ace, with no side entries. One obvious question for the person with the Ace is how many times to duck. The person without the Ace "knows" to give count for his partner, as this is the obvious question.
Or, which suit to return. This is also an "obvious" question, and probably a clear priority question. Or, which suit to save. Or, if you can ruff. Whatever. There seems to often be an obvious question that is recognized as suich on both sides of the table. I know to signal, and he knows to look, or vice versa.
My idea was that the obvious priority one question, contextually determined, should be answered. If I signal, I answer that question. If I am seeking the answer, I look for that answer.
So far, rather simple. Next step. The answer will be in the form of a count, attitude, or suit preference. That seems easy enough as well. If the question is as to West's length in clubs, the answer is provided with a count signal. If the question is as to East's interest in diamonds, the answer should be attiitude. If the Question is East's preference between the red suits, the answer should be suit preference.
So far, rather simple.
The idea, however, was that the pip played answered the critical, priority, obvious question regardless of its suit. In other words, suppose that the obvious priority #1 question is how many clubs East has. West should not have to wait until Declarer plays clubs for East to signal his length in clubs. If the question is known to be the priority question at trick one, after a diamond lead, then East should use his diamond pips (if he can, obviously) to give count in clubs, not diamonds, because the diamond count is not the priority question.
A Smith Echo is sort of that principle applied as a rule. A smith Echo is an "attitude signal" played with pips in one suit but expressing attitude for another suit. It is also sort of a "suit preference" signal when two suitsare considered, but the point is that the signal jumps suits. So, why not jump suits for all three signals -- count, attitude, and suit preference?
A similar concept arises when you have a Lavinthal Discard. You use an available suit to send a signal with regard to suit preference.
The existing schemes of defensive signalling seem to establish rules for when you jump across the restrictions of suit. A Smith Echo, for instance, occurs in the opponents' suit. Well, why not a "Smith Discard" if you are void in the opponents' suit? If Smith makes sense when you can follow suit, why not when you discard because you cannot follow suit?
I understand the need for rules. Defense is extremely difficult as it is. That said, I wonder which would be superior in the long run, assuming extremely talented defense. The "Predefined Rules" approach has the advantage of lessened risk of miscommunication, although it certainly does occur. An "Answer the Question" approach, which relies upon the ability of both partners, with different information, to both correctly and confidently assess the priority question, seems more prone to error but conversely more flexible, and thus more capable of handling strange and undiscussed, or perhaps discussed but atypical, defense problems.
I proposed this idea many years ago, probably not the first to do so. I was then even more of a "who the Hell is that guy?" player, and thus not able to get much in the way of discussion started. Maybe it is a crackpot idea. However, something to think about.
This line of thinking, for what it is worth, developed one friend of mine into a better defender, in my opinion. We had a humorous example of what we called an "Embedded Smith Echo." (The word "embedded" was in the news a lot then.) The "Embedded Smith Echo" was essentially an attitude signal for the alternative. If partner made an opening lead that sucked, once dummy hit, and there was a glaring "wonder if that would have worked better" suit in dummy, then the Smith Echo was made with a change of "let's assume you made the right lead." Because that partner usually made horrifying leads, the Embedded Smith Echo came up more than the Smith Echo.
We also used "Smith Discards" when void or when stiff or when forced to play the internal suits as you did. And, "Lavinthal Discards" when obviously, like pips in your long suit in a squeeze situation, etc.This of course ended up being not so much a matter of "answer the question" as it was a matter of "expand the rules." But, it approached closer to the ideal. The "ideal," of course, being no "rules," just situational application of principles on a case-by-case basis.
So, insanity or intriguing???