[jmcw]

Cascade, on Feb 19 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

We play Obvious Switch and I like it.

We pretty much play the Granovetter rules.

We have a number of situations in which we give count rather than attitude. When partner leads an honour an needs to be able to determine whether the lower honour will cash when there is a lower honour in dummy - typcially lead Ace and Queen in dummy or lead king and jack in dummy. In opening leader's suit we don't require the honour in dummy to switch (obviously excuse the pun) to count.

We only play Obvious Switch at trick one.

We play attitude and count discards not the recommended suit preference.

Thanks Wayne. Prety much the way in was explained to me. Nice to know you find it useful

[Lobowolf]

mikestar, on Feb 20 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

The key point about the Granovetters' method is not the obvious shift a trick one--this is just formalizing some common sense. For example if partner leads a diamond and he will shift to a heart if I discourage, it may be better to encourage with nothing in diamonds if the heart shift would be harmful.

The crux of the matter is the very frequent use of suit preference from trick 2 onward. This a mixed bag--sometimes works well, sometimes sucks. It does require a lot of work on partnership defense.

I think if we're going to narrow it down to one "key point," it's the formalization of which suit is designated the obvious shift suit, and the minimum strength required for tolerance. In every case, no matter how apparently vague or ambiguous (i.e. "unobvious") it may be, both partners know exactly what the obvious shift suit is; they also know what the minimum requirement is to suggest that shift.

[jmcw]

whereagles, on Feb 20 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

The 'obvious shift' principle becomes natural if you think of it in terms of "I must encourage if I can't stand a shift".

Used to play it, and think it's interesting. However, the Granovetters "sell" it in snake oil style. It won't solve all your defensive problems, like they promise.

Sounds like you,ve placed it in good context. No method will solve all problems, common sense needs to be mixed in.

[mikestar]

Lobowolf, on Feb 20 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

mikestar, on Feb 20 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

The key point about the Granovetters' method is not the obvious shift a trick one--this is just formalizing some common sense. For example if partner leads a diamond and he will shift to a heart if I discourage, it may be better to encourage with nothing in diamonds if the heart shift would be harmful.

The crux of the matter is the very frequent use of suit preference from trick 2 onward. This a mixed bag--sometimes works well, sometimes sucks. It does require a lot of work on partnership defense.

I think if we're going to narrow it down to one "key point," it's the formalization of which suit is designated the obvious shift suit, and the minimum strength required for tolerance. In every case, no matter how apparently vague or ambiguous (i.e. "unobvious") it may be, both partners know exactly what the obvious shift suit is; they also know what the minimum requirement is to suggest that shift.

You are correct about the great value of formalizing the signal to trick one. My reference was to the entirety of the Granovetters' methods advocated in A Switch In Time--in which they present obvious shift at trick one as an integral part of the frequent suit preference signaling on subsequent tricks. It is perfectly possible to disregard the suit preference signals (instead giving frequent count, for example) while still using obvious shift at trick one. This might even be superior to the book method--it's certainly worth exploring.

It's rather similar to the case of Journalist Leads--it is perfectly possible to play Journalist opening leads while not using Journalist later leads, even though Rubens and company aren't keen on doing so.

[kgr]

If you play obvious shift at trick 1, then is the obvious shift:
1. asking to play the obvious shift suit.
or
2. indicating you have A or K (or Q behind Axx) in the obvious shift suit.
 
I play method 2. If I have A or K in the obvious shift and a void in the non-obvious shift and wanting a ruff there then I still have to signal the obvious shift.
 
(Is it obvious switch or obvious shift?)

[jmcw]

kgr, on Feb 21 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

If you play obvious shift at trick 1, then is the obvious shift:
1. asking to play the obvious shift suit.
or
2. indicating you have A or K (or Q behind Axx) in the obvious shift suit.
 
I play method 2. If I have A or K in the obvious shift and a void in the non-obvious shift and wanting a ruff there then I still have to signal the obvious shift.
 
(Is it obvious switch or obvious shift?)

My friend explained it like this. Carding at trick 1 shows attitude pertaining to the Obvious suit, talking this into account, you are better placed to formulate the ENTIRE strategy for the hand. I believe this to mean that switching to the Obvious suit is by no means automatic. Subsequent, carding will be more likely to clarify the original signal in a broader context.