Obvious shift princple

[Flame]

I played it for a while id like to learn from others who play it if and what changes did they make to the original system.

Ill summerise the system as i see it.

1. Focus on suit preference rather then count, or one suit qulity, the attitude signal on the first lead is actually a suit pref between the suit led and the obvious shift suit.

2. give count on specific prediscussed cases only.

3. decide on the obvious shift suit based on a list of rules.

Some questions:

1. Do you use a set of rules for defining the os, or do you just count on having same logic as partner, and if you use a list, do you have something new in it that doesnt include on the original list ?

2. Its very heavy on suit pref and light on count, Do you keep giving suit pref discard after discard, or do you switch to count ? (example is second discard in a suit, or maybe even a discard in a suit you or your partner lead)

3. do you have more count situations then the original text ?

Anything you want to add about how you play it is welcomed.

obvious shift princple

[mikeh]

I played obvious shift in a very serious and successful partnership. We used the rules set out in the book for establishing the os suit: I believe that it is imperative that you have clear rules.

 

We did change one rule (at least I think the book suggested one thing and we did the other): when dummy hit with 2 identical suits (i.e. same length and same number of honours) and the os suit had to be one of them, I think the book said that the lower should be the os suit. The Grannovetters admitted that this was purely arbitrary and, for no good reason, we reversed it.

 

The main problem we had was that in the early stages we used it too much. The result was that a truly expert declarer could find out far too much. So we implemented a change: we used os only for the first 4 or 5 tricks at most: sometimes only the first three tricks (and of course, one is not always signalling at every trick). Thereafter we frequently played random cards, unless count or attitude was important: we had to develop a level of trust that we would each recognize when that was so, and be on the same wavelength. The introduction of randomness (which was not universal) was very useful against skilled declarers but a waste of time against weak players, who rarely notice or remember what cards were played earlier :D

 

By playing it for several tricks, you can actually refine your degree of preference, so we did not automatically switch to count. In some cases, especially before we stopped doing it throughout the hand, you could give very finely graded signals: but of course, declarer can watch as well as partner.

 

I am getting another partnership underway where I hope to get back to os. But then, for me, it was an easy transition because I have never been a fan of giving a lot of count.

[Gerben42]

The way I played it in my most serious partnership was playing it as in the book: suit preference always, count only in discussed situations. If you felt partner didn't need suit preference switch to throwing random cards.

 

New rules were added as a list. Rule 1 always goes first, if not then Rule 2, etc.

 

I really like this.

[Al_U_Card]

As simplistic as it may be, almost all of the necessary information was contained in the first "attitude" response so we generally only used it on opening lead. One rule we had to establish the O/S when there were similar O/S suits was to add the value of the cards and the highest won viz. KJ32 vs T984 so 29 vs 31 so the T984 was the O/S suit.

[pclayton]

There's nothing integral about suit preference in OS. The important thing is the agreements about the 1st trick. We play OS by the book, although Gran came up with some clarifications on the BT site that we use.

 

What works really well with OS is Smith vs NT and trump suit preference; especially Smith.

 

We've even played around with a special kind of Smith that the opening leader can use to show attitude toward the OS 'suit' in dummy, but we haven't gone any further than that.

[luke warm]

i like os (except for the exceptions, which i never quite get right), but i don't see the need to signal suit pref thruout the hand... a lot of info can be passed on the play to the first trick

[Winstonm]

I use O/S on a very limited basis - on opening lead only against suit contracts. I find that usually this is enough information to help guage the most accurate defense and gives away the least information.

 

Winston