Help
I'm struggling with the concept of the obvious shift in response to partners lead....It seems like there are 4 permutations...you like his lead and you can stand the obvious shift, you like his lead but cant stand the obvious shift, you don't like his lead and can stand the obvious shift, and finally you don't like his lead and cant stand the obvious shift.
Currently, partner and I use upside down attitude which indicates your yay or nay attitude on the opening lead....I'm not seeing how showing one of 4 possibilities can be conveyed (vs 1 of 2)
I need an epiphany.
obvious shift principle
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,261
- Joined: 2005-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-October-13, 12:08
Shugart23, on 2013-October-13, 11:46, said:
I'm struggling with the concept of the obvious shift in response to partners lead....It seems like there are 4 permutations...you like his lead and you can stand the obvious shift, you like his lead but cant stand the obvious shift, you don't like his lead and can stand the obvious shift, and finally you don't like his lead and cant stand the obvious shift.
Currently, partner and I use upside down attitude which indicates your yay or nay attitude on the opening lead....I'm not seeing how showing one of 4 possibilities can be conveyed (vs 1 of 2)
I need an epiphany.
Currently, partner and I use upside down attitude which indicates your yay or nay attitude on the opening lead....I'm not seeing how showing one of 4 possibilities can be conveyed (vs 1 of 2)
I need an epiphany.
It's indeed impossible to cater to all combinations. The trick one signal conveys the ability to withstand the OS and nothing else. Naturally, one can develop nuances (for example giving count when dummy comes down with Qxx(x) on the opening lead of A from AKxx), but these aren't part of the original scheme.
IMO, other schemes like leading A for attitude and K for count (and variations thereof) are better, but YMMV.
foobar on BBO
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 665
- Joined: 2013-July-07
Posted 2013-October-13, 12:22
So when using the OS, partner is solely giving attitude regarding the obvious shift and saying nothing what-so-ever about the suit partner opened with ? seems like it's giving up something, yet many people swear buy it....I guess it relies on opening leader to look at the board, and make his own determination on whether or not to shift or not. And if Opening leader does make that determination to shift, partner has given him a clue as to where to shift to. Maybe that's the theory..
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,952
- Joined: 2008-June-23
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-October-13, 12:33
The only thing I can add is the number of variations on suit preference situations ie. defending a suit contract where dummy has a stiff and high low are suit preference and middle is no preference, continue or cards in both which the leader can tell from the auction and their hand.
We also use this if dummy has double king or if you lead the Ace of my weak 2 suit where middle is continue or no preference. I've had partners who stop thinking at this point and I'm often just showing where my cards are not demanding the lead.
We also use this if dummy has double king or if you lead the Ace of my weak 2 suit where middle is continue or no preference. I've had partners who stop thinking at this point and I'm often just showing where my cards are not demanding the lead.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
What is baby oil made of?
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,893
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-October-13, 13:39
Shugart23, on 2013-October-13, 11:46, said:
I'm struggling with the concept of the obvious shift in response to partners lead....It seems like there are 4 permutations...you like his lead and you can stand the obvious shift, you like his lead but cant stand the obvious shift, you don't like his lead and can stand the obvious shift, and finally you don't like his lead and cant stand the obvious shift.
Currently, partner and I use upside down attitude which indicates your yay or nay attitude on the opening lead....I'm not seeing how showing one of 4 possibilities can be conveyed (vs 1 of 2)
I need an epiphany.
Currently, partner and I use upside down attitude which indicates your yay or nay attitude on the opening lead....I'm not seeing how showing one of 4 possibilities can be conveyed (vs 1 of 2)
I need an epiphany.
Sorry but this is not correct. OS tells you to:
1) continue
2) shift to the OS
3) cannot stand a continuation or a switch to the OS.( this takes a lot of practice and is the really tough one)
4) there are a few rare exceptions.
It can never tell you to shift to trumps.
Most important it tells you to rely on your bridge knowledge and experience. If you know what the defense should do...do it. People forget this part. It is only a suggestion, not a demand.
All of the above is about trick one but there is more:
For example after trick one you give suit preference signals.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,893
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-October-13, 13:58
Shugart23, on 2013-October-13, 12:22, said:
So when using the OS, partner is solely giving attitude regarding the obvious shift and saying nothing what-so-ever about the suit partner opened with ? seems like it's giving up something, yet many people swear buy it....I guess it relies on opening leader to look at the board, and make his own determination on whether or not to shift or not. And if Opening leader does make that determination to shift, partner has given him a clue as to where to shift to. Maybe that's the theory..
Basically yes you hit the nail on the head, rely on your bridge exp and knowledge first. Partner is making a suggested defense but you still need to stop and think. Don't forget to play suit pref at trick 2 etc.
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2013-October-13, 16:04
OS rules, as defined by the Granovetters, are (1) somewhat dogmatic, and (2) rather hard to understand for casual players.
I would think of some way to simplify stuff if I had the time. Since I don't, I just stopped playing it
I would think of some way to simplify stuff if I had the time. Since I don't, I just stopped playing it
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,400
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2013-October-13, 17:41
Really there are three cases:
1. You want partner to continue the suit he lead.
2. You want partner to shift to the obvious shift suit.
3. You want partner to shift to some other suit.
In traditional attitude signals, you encourage in case (1) and discourage in both (2) and (3). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem is that when you discourage, partner will often have trouble determining which suit you actually want played.
Playing obvious shift, you encourage in case (1) and (3) and discourage in (2). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem case is that when you encourage, partner sometimes cannot tell whether you want the opening lead suit continued or simply cannot stand the obvious shift suit. The good thing about obvious shift as opposed to standard attitude is that an awful lot is generally known about the opening lead suit based on the cards played to trick one. For example, if partner couldn't beat dummy's fairly small card then it's really unlikely that partner actually wants a continuation of the suit lead. This means the ambiguity between 1 vs. 3 tends to be less problematic than between 2 vs. 3.
1. You want partner to continue the suit he lead.
2. You want partner to shift to the obvious shift suit.
3. You want partner to shift to some other suit.
In traditional attitude signals, you encourage in case (1) and discourage in both (2) and (3). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem is that when you discourage, partner will often have trouble determining which suit you actually want played.
Playing obvious shift, you encourage in case (1) and (3) and discourage in (2). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem case is that when you encourage, partner sometimes cannot tell whether you want the opening lead suit continued or simply cannot stand the obvious shift suit. The good thing about obvious shift as opposed to standard attitude is that an awful lot is generally known about the opening lead suit based on the cards played to trick one. For example, if partner couldn't beat dummy's fairly small card then it's really unlikely that partner actually wants a continuation of the suit lead. This means the ambiguity between 1 vs. 3 tends to be less problematic than between 2 vs. 3.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,893
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-October-13, 18:34
Please keep in mind we are talking about 25 years ago when the book came out. What is the OS and how to ask for it was in disagreement. This book suggested a solution.
#10
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 665
- Joined: 2013-July-07
Posted 2013-October-14, 05:23
awm, on 2013-October-13, 17:41, said:
Really there are three cases:
1. You want partner to continue the suit he lead.
2. You want partner to shift to the obvious shift suit.
3. You want partner to shift to some other suit.
In traditional attitude signals, you encourage in case (1) and discourage in both (2) and (3). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem is that when you discourage, partner will often have trouble determining which suit you actually want played.
Playing obvious shift, you encourage in case (1) and (3) and discourage in (2). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem case is that when you encourage, partner sometimes cannot tell whether you want the opening lead suit continued or simply cannot stand the obvious shift suit. The good thing about obvious shift as opposed to standard attitude is that an awful lot is generally known about the opening lead suit based on the cards played to trick one. For example, if partner couldn't beat dummy's fairly small card then it's really unlikely that partner actually wants a continuation of the suit lead. This means the ambiguity between 1 vs. 3 tends to be less problematic than between 2 vs. 3.
1. You want partner to continue the suit he lead.
2. You want partner to shift to the obvious shift suit.
3. You want partner to shift to some other suit.
In traditional attitude signals, you encourage in case (1) and discourage in both (2) and (3). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem is that when you discourage, partner will often have trouble determining which suit you actually want played.
Playing obvious shift, you encourage in case (1) and (3) and discourage in (2). Sometimes you can afford a "really unusual card" to signal for specifically (3). The problem case is that when you encourage, partner sometimes cannot tell whether you want the opening lead suit continued or simply cannot stand the obvious shift suit. The good thing about obvious shift as opposed to standard attitude is that an awful lot is generally known about the opening lead suit based on the cards played to trick one. For example, if partner couldn't beat dummy's fairly small card then it's really unlikely that partner actually wants a continuation of the suit lead. This means the ambiguity between 1 vs. 3 tends to be less problematic than between 2 vs. 3.
But what if you are happy with partner continuing with suit he led or happy with the obvious shift BUT cannot stand a shift to the 3rd suit (non-obvious shift suit). You go ahead and give encouraging signal and hope partner can see from cards and dummy and bidding that the non-obvious shift is not desired ?
#11
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 665
- Joined: 2013-July-07
Posted 2013-October-14, 06:42
Shugart23, on 2013-October-14, 05:23, said:
But what if you are happy with partner continuing with suit he led or happy with the obvious shift BUT cannot stand a shift to the 3rd suit (non-obvious shift suit). You go ahead and give encouraging signal and hope partner can see from cards and dummy and bidding that the non-obvious shift is not desired ?
I guess in the same vein, if you are not happy with either the suit partner led or the OS, you give an encouraging signal and hope partner figures out you want the shift to the third suit.
If I am understanding it, say against a 4 Spade contract, and the obvious shift is ,say, Diamonds. When Partner leading the K of Hearts (promises the Ace) and I play the 2 of hearts (encouraging), my message to him is either I like the heart continuation, but dont want a club shift OR I don't like the heart continuation but I do want the Club shift ?
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,458
- Joined: 2011-March-15
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-October-14, 06:45
When I played it, an "encouraging" signal on trick 1 just said "I'm not crazy about the OS suit" and "discouraging" said "I like the OS suit". Then opening leader had to use his judgment to try and figure out what to do about that preference, similar to any signaling system.
#13
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 665
- Joined: 2013-July-07
Posted 2013-October-14, 07:51
In my example above (defending 4S), it does seem like the encouraging '2' is telling my partner either I like the club shift or I like the Diamond shift and you go figure it out......I guess I need to think on it more.....
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,458
- Joined: 2011-March-15
- Gender:Male
Posted 2013-October-14, 08:09
In your example, the ♥2 would tell partner "I'm not crazy about ♦". He will consider dummy, his own hand and the bidding to decide if it means he should continue hearts or switch to clubs or a trump.
#15
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 665
- Joined: 2013-July-07
Posted 2013-October-14, 08:37
You are hitting on why it is confusing to me. Suppose I absolutely can't stand the club shift, but like the heart continuation ? Don't I still play the 2 to encourage the heart continuation (and therefore it doesnt necessarily say I;m not crazy about Diamonds...in fact, I might love a Diamond shift after he cashes his Ace ?)
#16
- Tubthumper
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,835
- Joined: 2007-July-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR, USA
- Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.
Posted 2013-October-14, 09:49
We combined obvious shift principles with Smith echo against suit and NT contracts, and our signaling was based on what we needed to do to set the contract. If we could stand an obvious shift, we discouraged, if we could not, we encouraged. Then we would continue on with our attitude toward the opening lead. Playing this style you have to make a lot of early decisions in the defense, though, so its important to take a consistent amount of time before trick 1 to decide how you want to signal, and then to signal in tempo. We also shifted our priorities to a normal attitude signal when a bath coup position potentially existed, with attitude toward the obvious shift suit now being conveyed with the Smith echo.
It was a very complicated defensive scheme, and tough to explain to opponents because the signaling was very fluid. I like my current, simpler signaling scheme better - attitude at trick 1, lots of suit preference in the play where others would give count, count only in a hold-up situation, or in other very specific situations.
It was a very complicated defensive scheme, and tough to explain to opponents because the signaling was very fluid. I like my current, simpler signaling scheme better - attitude at trick 1, lots of suit preference in the play where others would give count, count only in a hold-up situation, or in other very specific situations.
Chris Gibson
#17
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 665
- Joined: 2013-July-07
Posted 2013-October-15, 12:27
I think I have had the lightbulb go on . Can someone tell me if they agree with this :
Assume we are defending against a suit contract. Partner makes a lead and dummy comes down. One of the remaining two suits (not trump and not the suit partner led) is the OS . To keep things simple, assume partner led a King promising the Ace. (Alternatively, Partner led an 8 to dummy's Ace)
My job is to look at the Obvious Shift suit and give partner attitude regarding the OS suit. My signal really says nothing about the suit that he has led; partner needs to make that determination himself whether to continue based on the cards and bidding.
In other words, my attitude signal at trick one is generally not about the suit partner led .
Assume we are defending against a suit contract. Partner makes a lead and dummy comes down. One of the remaining two suits (not trump and not the suit partner led) is the OS . To keep things simple, assume partner led a King promising the Ace. (Alternatively, Partner led an 8 to dummy's Ace)
My job is to look at the Obvious Shift suit and give partner attitude regarding the OS suit. My signal really says nothing about the suit that he has led; partner needs to make that determination himself whether to continue based on the cards and bidding.
In other words, my attitude signal at trick one is generally not about the suit partner led .
#18
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2013-October-18, 06:28
Yes you got it.
OS is a really big help for intermed. players. No expert will really need it, because he usually makes the right thinking anyway. But for the intermedeates it helps them to think about more then just the suit lead. It is a first step to think about the whole hand.
You have two advantages from os:
1. It is usually much easier for partner to see whether or not he should continue the suit he lead after the first trick. He led the suit for a reason- often because he holds strength there. He sees whether and with which card declarer wins or ducks the trick. He does not have these informations for the suit he needs to switch too.
2. As said before: it is one of the most common mistakes to signal just for the suit which is lead. You have to look at the whole hand before you can signal. But "nobody" does it, they simple follow their set of rules. This happens to the OS crowd too, but at least they are forced to think about more then one suit before they signal.
OS is a really big help for intermed. players. No expert will really need it, because he usually makes the right thinking anyway. But for the intermedeates it helps them to think about more then just the suit lead. It is a first step to think about the whole hand.
You have two advantages from os:
1. It is usually much easier for partner to see whether or not he should continue the suit he lead after the first trick. He led the suit for a reason- often because he holds strength there. He sees whether and with which card declarer wins or ducks the trick. He does not have these informations for the suit he needs to switch too.
2. As said before: it is one of the most common mistakes to signal just for the suit which is lead. You have to look at the whole hand before you can signal. But "nobody" does it, they simple follow their set of rules. This happens to the OS crowd too, but at least they are forced to think about more then one suit before they signal.
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#19
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 665
- Joined: 2013-July-07
Posted 2013-October-18, 14:00
Thanks, and thanks to all who responded. So let me ask a really dumb question. Why do you need to have a hierarchy of rules which defines the OS......Against a 4S contract, partner leads a 8 of hearts to dummy's Ace. What would be wrong with 3rd hand simply giving an attitude signal on the higher ranking of the two remaining suits.
IF OS is an improvement over standard attitude signals, logically (?) is my suggestion above also better than standard attitude signals. Is the suggestion above just as good as OS ?
I'm off to go read switch in time, meanwhile. Thanks
IF OS is an improvement over standard attitude signals, logically (?) is my suggestion above also better than standard attitude signals. Is the suggestion above just as good as OS ?
I'm off to go read switch in time, meanwhile. Thanks
#20
- Tubthumper
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,835
- Joined: 2007-July-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portland, OR, USA
- Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.
Posted 2013-October-18, 14:20
Shugart23, on 2013-October-18, 14:00, said:
Thanks, and thanks to all who responded. So let me ask a really dumb question. Why do you need to have a hierarchy of rules which defines the OS......Against a 4S contract, partner leads a 8 of hearts to dummy's Ace. What would be wrong with 3rd hand simply giving an attitude signal on the higher ranking of the two remaining suits.
IF OS is an improvement over standard attitude signals, logically (?) is my suggestion above also better than standard attitude signals. Is the suggestion above just as good as OS ?
I'm off to go read switch in time, meanwhile. Thanks
IF OS is an improvement over standard attitude signals, logically (?) is my suggestion above also better than standard attitude signals. Is the suggestion above just as good as OS ?
I'm off to go read switch in time, meanwhile. Thanks
The hierarchy of rules are because information about potential shifts where dummy is weaker but with length is inherently more important than where they are strong or short. Having your "always the higher suit" rule means you might be giving attitude about a suit where dummy is void, or where they have 3 consecutive honors, or other things where it is next to pointless to shift to most of the time. It would be completely awful - the standard attitude signal is based on a suit that partner's holding and the bidding made it appear worth attacking, and the obvious shift signal is based on several factors, but all designed to identify the suit that seems most worth attacking for the defense as well.
Your suggestion of higher suit gives up all of the intelligence of the signalling design/partner for no real benefit. I don't think you have really thought this through.
Based on your questions, it seems like a better use of time might be shoring up defensive fundamentals rather than fooling around with different signalling systems.
Oh, and for the record, I completely disagree with the poster who said obvious shift is best for intermediates. I think it is best for experts, but only as a part of a complete carding system. To do obvious shift well, I think you really need to understand defensive signalling in general.
Chris Gibson