Obvious Shift

[jmcw]

A good friend of mine, plays the Granovetter's obvious shift carding. He is pretty a good players and swears by it. According to him many defensive situations can be dealt with more accurately, and he sees little downside.

If it's so good why is it not played by more experts. I would appreciate any insight.

[Free]

It's great in some situations, but not in others. It's imo not clear if the tradeoff is worth it.

[TimG]

I think many experts do play something like obvious shift, just not so rigorously laid out and applied as in the Granovetters' book.

[mikeh]

I love it. None of my current partners play it, and while we do okay on defence, it is tougher. When I did play it, we ended up with a rule that it only applied during the first part of the defence, because it is so informative that a good declarer can use it against you. We used the grannovetter rules, altho we inverted one of the arbitrary ones... when dummy holds two 'equal' suits, I think G suggested the lower one to be the OS suit.. and we played the higher one, for no reason other than that we decided to...

[Winstonm]

The concept always made sense but I never could get partner persuaded to learn something new.

[dicklont]

What is obvious shift carding?

[Phil]

Lots of experience with it and I can tell you that it is worth the time invested.

 

You need to be very clear on the rules of when it applies and when it doesn't. Even BT has changed its rules over the years.

[awm]

What is obvious shift carding?

The idea is that after the dummy comes down, a particular suit other than the one lead is designated the Obvious Shift.

 

If opening leader's partner makes a discouraging signal to the opening lead, it means he would like a switch to the Obvious Shift suit. An encouraging signal to the opening lead can be based on a hand that doesn't want a switch to the Obvious Shift suit, even without holding much of anything in the suit lead.

 

The full Obvious Shift method described in the Granovetters' excellent book "A switch in time" gives a full set of rules for determining which suit is the obvious shift. In general these are very logical (based on the bidding and on what's in dummy) but occasionally there is an arbitrary tie-breaker (i.e. lowest suit) because it is important that both partners be in agreement about which suit is the Obvious Shift. The book also recommends giving frequent suit preference signals (rather than count) to declarer's leads.

[Cascade]

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.

[maxentius]

I played this convention 5 years ago...sometimes very good results, sometimes disasters...now I have 2 good friends of mine who play Obvious Shift...my oppinion is that only a very old relationship should play this convention and after loooong discutions only...the worst thing regarding of this convention is that sometimes you should choice the smalest disaster from a hand which doesn't know anything...sometimes you lead and partner make an signal...you'll never know if that one is an agressive one or just a refusing for an alternative...sometimes you have Qxx and pd requires to play in this suit (the dummy has xxxx) and you'll play there and you'll make free way for the declarer...he doesn't need to find the position...you'll never know if the pd want's to play obviously there or doesn't like to continue the leadind suit...and finally I don't agree that a covention could generate disaster...I accept to not find everytime the perfect defence way, but I really hate to play a convention which sometimes could make me the only one player who will deliver a slam...and the players who use to play OS could confirm it

[Gerben42]

It is very good but needs some practice and a regular partner. It's not "2/1, 3rd and 5th, Obv. Shift partner?"

[PrecisionL]

I have had more arguments over Obvious Shift than any other thing in bridge. I have played it with only a few partners that have read the book. It is a winner in the long term, but you must get the rules down pat.

 

I am moving toward giving count more often as Mark Horton's book on defense makes such a good case for count.

[whereagles]

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.

[TimG]

Playing Obvious Shift, I once led an Ace against 6♣ and partner dropped an honor. In Obvious Shift methods this asks for the unusual shift. I duly shifted; my partner was a bit annoyed that he did not get his ruff.

 

No matter what carding method you are using, it is important to use common sense and not get caught up in the method -- any method will run into situations where cards are not readable or the "wrong" card must be played in order to take all your tricks.

[Codo]

Yes nothing works ever, but OS is great.

[mikestar]

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.

[jmcw]

I love it. None of my current partners play it, and while we do okay on defence, it is tougher. When I did play it, we ended up with a rule that it only applied during the first part of the defence, because it is so informative that a good declarer can use it against you. We used the grannovetter rules, altho we inverted one of the arbitrary ones... when dummy holds two 'equal' suits, I think G suggested the lower one to be the OS suit.. and we played the higher one, for no reason other than that we decided to...

As I recall. My expert P only uses it at trick 1. I'm unclear on the reason for this but I will try to clarify

[jmcw]

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.

Yes, this sounds about right. Trick 1 is the trigger. Subsequent carding also relates to suit prefenence "re-inforcment"

[jmcw]

The concept always made sense but I never could get partner persuaded to learn something new.

Time for a new P ;) . New ideas are most often worth a try.

[jmcw]

What is obvious shift carding?

Suit preference carding relating to Dummy's Suit. By definition 1 suit is designated as the OBVIOUS suit and attitude is given regarding that suit.

[jmcw]

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]

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]

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]

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?)