[jillybean]

My partner and I are experimenting with the Granovetter Obvious Shift and I have a few questions.

1. Is the signal only made on the opening lead? If the lead is from low and partner wins the trick would either player give an OS signal on subsequent plays?

2. Is discouragement to the lead a DEMAND to switch? If partner has a cashing sequence does she switch on trick 2 or switch after she has cashed her winners?

3. If you have used OS, what is your experience and opinion of the gadget?

[mike777]

1) Basically OS is trick one. You can give suit preference when following with small cards in the trump suit but basically trick one. Of course you can still give attitude, suit pref and count signals as usual in later tricks it just is not part of OS.

2) There is no demanding in OS. They authors emphasize over and over again use your bridge judgment and experience. OS suggests but never demands.

3) OS is great and should noticeably improve your defense. Even if you later decide to switch to other methods I feel strongly OS is a great learning tool for improving players. As usual experiment with it and see if your defensive results improve. If not you can always try something else.

[jillybean]

 mike777, on 2014-October-08, 07:34, said:

2) There is no demanding in OS. They authors emphasize over and over again use your bridge judgment and experience. OS suggests but never demands.

Not all, "An article from Granovettors site . Good general rules to follow. With no known length from the bidding ( Gartaganis signals ) , this article is as good as any. It is a new way of looking at attitude signals. The concept of being aware and on the look out for an obvious shift suit is helpful for defending. A discouraging signal is tied to the obvious shift suit rather than partner you are on your own to find out why I discouraged your opening lead. Basically you encourage partners led suit if you can not stand the switch to the “obvious suit” . This does not necessarily mean you like partners lead. You just can not stand the switch. This is similar thinking to Smith echos when declarer runs her suit. You say you like the lead when you have no suit preference for a switch. A discouraging signal is a demand for a switch."

This got me thinking that if a discouraging signal is a demand for a switch to the OS suit, it does have benefits over standard methods which require two plays to name a suit.
However a demand for a switch needs to be given much more consideration than a simple attitude signal.

[mike777]

"...This is similar thinking to Smith echos when declarer runs her suit. You say you like the lead when you have no suit preference for a switch. A discouraging signal is a demand for a switch."


As I read what you wrote perhaps in Smith Echo it is a demand but in OS it not. In their book from years ago they repeated over and over again that if you know what to do then do it. If your bridge experience and bridge judgment override partners best suggested defense, ok. the purpose of OS is for your partner to give her best suggested defense and for you to understand her suggestion.

They invented OS because so many other methods were muddled and confusing to each partner. OS is not perfect, it is meant to be an improvement on other methods and to improve your communication with partner. For example even at the very top levels there was wide disagreement on what the suggested switch suit was. In OS they created a set of rules to define the switch suit. Now in practice you will rarely override partner

In any event if you buy their book and perhaps they have a more updated version than my old one, that should help.

[steve2005]

I haven't read Granovettors book but I thought obvious shift also applied to the first suit lead by declarer. Is that true?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#2 my regular p disagrees, but in general even when p makes a bad lead,
it is often better to continue with the suit, that got killed by the lead,
than to kill a 2nd suit, so you can agree, that, if you have no idea or pref.
you signal pos., making a neg. signal a stronger message, i.e. urging p to
switch.
OS basically gives you a rule set to which suit p will switch, if he switches,
and the neg. signal now tells p, that you can handle the switch.

#3 we tried it shortly, but it did no work out, hence we dropped it quickly.
We believe it makes sense, but ...

#1 OS is for the opening lead. You can apply the OS rules to later tricks, if
p tackles a new suit, but if you signal neg. it is clear, what suit you want,
you already have information about the suit lead, and at least in trump contracts,
it would be clear, which other suit is it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

Like anything (including a "lead my suit, even if you have to find a card from another board" double of 3NT), it might demand what it likes. What you do with that demand is up to you.

If your partner tells you to do something, and you don't do it, you'd better be right, of course! (last one I can remember is "I need a spade switch to set the contract" "My 5+card spade suit is actually 9, you aren't getting a ruff, or a trump promotion for that matter")

[whereagles]

 jillybean, on 2014-October-08, 05:50, said:

3. If you have used OS, what is your experience and opinion of the gadget?

I played it for like 2 years. It's nice but the excessive number of rules to determine the OS suit means you can only play it with partners that study. (Like 5-10% at most)

[mikeh]

I played obvious switch in a very good partnership for about 4 years.

Obvious switch can be played as deep into a hand as you like. However, against skilled declarers, be aware that they can read your signals as well as you can. Our experience led us to an agreement that we would never make an o.s. signal after about trick 5. That is not to say we always made o.s. signals that deep into the hand.....it is often possible to know that the important information, if any, has been conveyed earlier. It is also common that only one defender has an issue and when both defenders are good enough to recognize that, then both can and should card randomly. And so on.

As for demands......there is NEVER a reason why any signal should be treated as a demand.

I don't care how clear it may be to a defender that his or her partner MUST make a certain switch: it is not possible to play good defence when any signal is treated as a demand.

How does a defender say that a card played is, this time, a demand while saying that on the next hand a similar signal is merely a request?

It isn't possible, at least not ethically. However, in the hands of a skilled player in a good partnership, o.s. is, imo, the best carding agreement I have ever played.

O.s. is just like any other carding method in that its success is to some extent dependent on the skill level of the players.

When your partner gives you an obvious switch signal, it is your task to review the bidding, to look at dummy, to note the card played by declarer, to see what options are available, to consider what partner's holdings might be, and to determine whether, in that context, you ought to make a switch.

It is the essence of obvious switch that sometimes signaller isn't conveying a positive message at all....only a negative one.

Thus partner may signal for a continuation of the opening led suit even tho that is not helpful.....the reason being that this unhelpful continuation is, from signaller's perspective, better than making the obvious switch. There are times when opening leader can deduce that partner's apparent encouragement cannot be 'real' and then find a switch to the non-obvious suit. Of course, one needs to be very careful to play in tempo. A slow, tortured encouraging card is more likely to lead to a non-obvious switch than an in-tempo encouragement.

This is an under-appreciated aspect of o.s. but can be minimized by making a rule and habit of always playing slowly to the first trick.

[kgr]

 jillybean, on 2014-October-08, 05:50, said:

Is discouragement to the lead a DEMAND to switch? If partner has a cashing sequence does she switch on trick 2 or switch after she has cashed her winners?

My partner and I play that a discouragement to the lead shows A or K in OS color (or Q if OS in dummy has something like AJxx, AKJx). It is absolutely no demand to switch. Partner should try to use the info given and decide if switching is best or not.
(Sometimes we are allowed to give partner wrong info, f.i. show something in OS without A or K if continuing the opening suit is gonna cost.)

[PrecisionL]

kgr said:

1412852591[/url]' post='814683']
My partner and I play that a discouragement to the lead shows A or K in OS color (or Q if OS in dummy has something like AJxx, AKJx). It is absolutely no demand to switch. Partner should try to use the info given and decide if switching is best or not.
(Sometimes we are allowed to give partner wrong info, f.i. show something in OS without A or K if continuing the opening suit is gonna cost.)

Yes, exact.y how I play OS in several partnerships. My favorite defensive convention.

[Cascade]

1. I have played OS for many years. Initially in a more casual partnership and then in my most practiced partnership.

2. It is relatively easy to set up rules to determine the obvious switch. Basically weakest unbid suit unless our side has bid a suit, with some tie break criteria. The rules are not complex it just takes discipline to go through them every time if there are ties. On most hands the obvious switch is "obvious".

3. For us discourage shows an honour in the OS suit and encourage denies an honour. These rules are not rigid. For example we can encourage with an OS honour if we think it is much more important to continue; we have occasionally discouraged when we want the OS suit for a ruff rather than having an honour there.

4. We are not demanding switches, we are giving information on which partner can make good decisions.

5. I don't think that OS is the best thing available or possible. However the rigour that it demands means that we are always giving good information which helps partner. I am sure that a more standard approach with detailed discussion could be close to just as good and maybe even better. There are great ideas for example in Marshall Miles book Defensive Signals.

Here is a hand that is my favourite from playing this method.

---

The opponents were playing Precision so 1♣ was strong. Otherwise the bidding is natural.

I lead a normal ♣J declarer won the ace and partner discouraged with the ♣2 (Standard for us). This showed a high spade honour.

Now when declarer cashed the ♥A I followed with the queen to created a restricted choice situation. Declarer obliged with the finesse to my jack.

Then I could play ace and another spade for a third round ruff if partner cooperated. She did and we defeated an otherwise solid contract.

[whereagles]

The hand above also shows that signalling isn't automatic; players need to exercise judgement. Encouraging a spade switch with Qxxx might have been disastrous

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies

Am I correct in thinking that any count signal, when relevant, would have priority over OS?

[mikeh]

 jillybean, on 2014-October-10, 08:47, said:

Thanks for the replies

Am I correct in thinking that any count signal, when relevant, would have priority over OS?

yes, at least in the partnership in which we played OS

Beginners never signal because they don't understand the concept of information exchange and/or they haven't yet learned to try to figure out what's going on, beyond the cards they hold.

Advancing players learn all kinds of signals, and some players become addicted to signalling. This is especially true, in my experience, for people who think giving count is essential...as a declarer I really, really like playing against such players.

Experts learn not only when one gives count or attitude but also, and this is probably the last aspect of signalling to be learned, when not to signal at all.

[Cascade]

 jillybean, on 2014-October-10, 08:47, said:

Thanks for the replies

Am I correct in thinking that any count signal, when relevant, would have priority over OS?

We had the rule that if an honour was led and the honour two below appears in dummy you give count - especially on the lead of an ace (from ace-king) with the guarded queen appearing in dummy.

[jillybean]

I am now answering any queries about our carding with "we play UDCA but obvious shift on the first lead"

And to the next question, what is OS, or what does that card mean? I am thinking of having a sheet available:

The Obvious Shift cannot be the suit led
The Obvious Shift is never trumps.
The Obvious Shift is never a suit headed by the A-K-Q or four of the top five honors.
The Obvious Shift in a suit contract is never dummy's singleton or void.
The Obvious Shift is never a natural suit bid by declarer.
If the opening leader has not bid a suit, the leader's partner's bid suit is the Obvious Shift.
If both defenders have bid suits and the opening leader starts with an unbid suit, look at the suits and choose one of them by applying the rules below.
When the defense has bid two suits or when the defense has not bid any suits:
a. against a suit contract, a three-card suit headed by at most one honor, Ace, King, Queen, Jack, Ten, is the Obvious Shift.
b. against No Trump, dummy's shortest suit is the Obvious Shift, even a strong holding such as Ace-King doubleton.
c. when there is no weak three-card suit, the shortest suit is the Obvious Shift. But against a suit contract, this cannot be a singleton or void.
d. when there are two equal length suits, either of which might be the Obvious Shift, look at the number of honors. The suit with fewer honors is the Obvious Shift. If the suits have an equal number of honors, the lower-ranking suit is arbitrarily deemed to be the Obvious Shift.


How else can I provide full disclosure other than telling the opponent what the card means?

[mike777]

Simply say we play attitude very frequently at trick one. Short and sweet and full disclosure. No need for some sheet.

I doubt they will ask other questions but if they do then simply answer them.

[jeffford76]

 jillybean, on 2014-October-14, 09:34, said:

I am now answering any queries about our carding with "we play UDCA but obvious shift on the first lead"

And to the next question, what is OS, or what does that card mean? I am thinking of having a sheet available:

How else can I provide full disclosure other than telling the opponent what the card means?

I think you just say "given the auction and the dummy, the card is attitude about suit X" where you fill in X. I don't think opponents have any responsibility to work through your set of rules.

[mikeh]

When I played obvious switch, the competition ranged from a local sectional to world championships. Experts usually don't need to ask beyond being told 'obvious shift'.

Less experienced players won't want to try to figure out your rules. Meanwhile, giving too much information, if not specifically requested, can give rise to the appearance of giving your own partner too much information.

My advice is to say: Unless this is a count situation, we usually give attitude, and in doing so we express whether we like the lead compared to the 'obvious switch suit'. We have a number of rules that allow us to identify that suit based on dummy and the bidding. I can give you more detail if you want.


Sometimes they will ask you to identify the obvious switch suit and you can then do that without explaining how it is chosen. it is so simple that after playing for a few sessions you will probably never make a mistake, so there shouldn't be a lot of ethical issues....especially if you and your partner agree not to make facial expressions or noises if partner screws up the explanation.