ewj Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 [hv=pc=n&s=sk932hq6djt73c862&w=s5hj74dq9642ckqj4&n=saqjt64hak2d8c973&e=s87ht9853dak5cat5&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] E/W were actually vun. Ace of diamonds lead. Does anybody think that they could cash out successfully? What card should West play. Playing UDCA (or any preferred signalling method) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 In standard methods, East has to do some guessing. Playing obvious shift where a discouraging card shows the ♣ A or K, the cash out is easy. In standard of course West has to discourage. Partner's lead is either the stiff A or AKx, so encouraging diamonds is a bad idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 West should discourage,This should ask for club (its easier when playing OS) now if playing os i would feel confident to play small club (my partner will not enc club without the K), but not playing os i would probably play the A of club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 If Pard has the KJ of hearts and/or QJXXX of clubs here, presumably he will encourage the Diamond continuation, so there will be no accidents. Thus, discouraging diamonds does indeed make it an "obvious" (club) shift situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 A small club can be right even when West prefers hearts. For example, if West has x Axx Q9xxx Jxxx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 A small club can be right even when West prefers hearts. For example, if West has x Axx Q9xxx Jxxx. Yes but can be wrong on many hands where west doesn't have 5 diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Yes but can be wrong on many hands where west doesn't have 5 diamonds. I don't understand your point. Do you mean on hands where West encourages diamonds? Give an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 +1 for OS -- in our methods pard will play D♦ on the lead of the ♦K, implying A/K of ♣. Deciding how many ♣ tricks to cash might be more interesting, but a shift to a third / fifth best club should make it easy for West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I don't understand your point. Do you mean on hands where West encourages diamonds? Give an example.x Jxx Qxxx QJxxx, with declarer having AQJxxx AKx xx Kx. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 x Jxx Qxxx QJxxx, with declarer having AQJxxx AKx xx Kx. I still have no idea what his point is, since when pard encourages, I don't play a low club. :( A low diamond is not totally clear though, and I'm never playing a heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Yes but can be wrong on many hands where west doesn't have 5 diamonds. I don't understand your point. Do you mean on hands where West encourages diamonds? Give an example.I, in turn, don't understand your point.Holding x KJxx xxxx xxxx, I would certainly discourage diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I, in turn, don't understand your point.Holding x KJxx xxxx xxxx, I would certainly discourage diamonds. Well that's all I was asking for. Without the statement that one would discourage with that hand (and I don't agree - I would play a Rosenbergian fudge card) I was too thick to work out what his point was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewj Posted March 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I don't really understand some of these points...I see comments like "I'm never playing a heart"....I mean obviously encouraging diamonds is game over...but how do you suggest a ♣ switch from ATx? What does "obvious switch" mean exactly? Discouraging diamonds would mean switching to clubs? And what you'd encourage ♦ if you didn't want a club switch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Phil, i didn't mean when partner encourage, I meant when he discourage.I thought this is what you meant to say, that even if partner discourage thinking that this shows hearts rather then club its still good to play small club. I'm not saying its wrong, just that on some hands it will lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 I don't really understand some of these points...I see comments like "I'm never playing a heart"....I mean obviously encouraging diamonds is game over...but how do you suggest a ♣ switch from ATx? What does "obvious switch" mean exactly? Discouraging diamonds would mean switching to clubs? And what you'd encourage ♦ if you didn't want a club switch? Signalling should never be just about the suit lead, so when you descarage diamond you imply that you want a shift. there are many hands that you cannot tolerate a shift and would therefore encourage the suit lead since it is less damaging than a switch. Obvious shift is a signaling system that the granoveters published in their book, you can read about it on daniel's site. Obvious shift is considered for experts but it actually design to make things simpler so make things simpler that the non expert player will be able to know what his signal mean as he was an expert by simply memorizing a set of rules and more important that his partner will be on the same waves. basically any signal is giving preference between the lead suit and the obvious shift suit which is defined by the set of rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Phil, i didn't mean when partner encourage, I meant when he discourage.I thought this is what you meant to say, that even if partner discourage thinking that this shows hearts rather then club its still good to play small club. I'm not saying its wrong, just that on some hands it will lose. Oh, I see. No - if partner encouraged I would continue diamonds. If partner wants a heart switch, he has to play second lowest from four small playing UDCA hoping I can sniff it out, but I doubt that works here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewj Posted March 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 Signalling should never be just about the suit lead, so when you descarage diamond you imply that you want a shift. there are many hands that you cannot tolerate a shift and would therefore encourage the suit lead since it is less damaging than a switch. Obvious shift is a signaling system that the granoveters published in their book, you can read about it on daniel's site. Obvious shift is considered for experts but it actually design to make things simpler so make things simpler that the non expert player will be able to know what his signal mean as he was an expert by simply memorizing a set of rules and more important that his partner will be on the same waves. basically any signal is giving preference between the lead suit and the obvious shift suit which is defined by the set of rules. What if you held the ace of ♥ instead of the ♣K and ♥J...i.e. a ♣ around to the K is no good, while continuing ♦ would allow a discard to be established for a ♣...i.e. need a ♥ switch?.. I mean to me a ♥ through Qx doesn't look unattractive :P....Obviously appreciate that you can't do everything...if dummy was Kxx Qxx JTxx xxx, what would be the "obvious" switch? A ♣ still? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 17, 2013 Report Share Posted March 17, 2013 What if you held the ace of ♥ instead of the ♣K and ♥J...i.e. a ♣ around to the K is no good, while continuing ♦ would allow a discard to be established for a ♣...i.e. need a ♥ switch?.. I mean to me a ♥ through Qx doesn't look unattractive :P....Obviously appreciate that you can't do everything...if dummy was Kxx Qxx JTxx xxx, what would be the "obvious" switch? A ♣ still? Sometimes you need to do the least damage thing, and if as you say i had the AH and nothing in club, i would enc diamond, but as east after partner enc diamond, im not sure i continue diamond (it could be very bad idea if partner has 3 to the Q, and nothing in Hearts, so probably should play dimaond) about the hand you gave, 3 small is always the obvious shift first candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I see some fine DD defenses here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I see some fine DD defenses here. Playing OS the defense is pretty clear here, i would make it at the table with a regular partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWO4BRIDGE Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Playing OS the defense is pretty clear here, i would make it at the table with a regular partner.All that discouraging ♦ does is discourage ♦ continuation. How is a ♣ shift obvious ? and not a ♥ shift ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 All that discouraging ♦ does is discourage ♦ continuation. How is a ♣ shift obvious ? and not a ♥ shift ?? As I said, playing OS (obvious shift) its clear, as this is the all point of obvious shift.http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/ObviousShift.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 How does OS improve on suit preference? It seems to me that you're not signalling about the diamond suit at all: you're simply playing "low = dummy's weaker suit, high = dummy's stronger suit (or no preference)". To me that seems no better than "low = dummy's lower suit, high = dummy's higher suit; with no preference signal for dummy's stronger suit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 All that discouraging ♦ does is discourage ♦ continuation. How is a ♣ shift obvious ? and not a ♥ shift ??OS is a set of rules that unambiguously determines a certain suit to be "THE obvious shift suit" (for example "shortest suit in NT" combined with "if there are 2 or more OS candidates, the lowest suit is the OS suit"). Discouraging the opening lead actually asks to switch to the OS suit. Discouraging with an unnecessary honor card asks to lead the remaining suit (never trumps). I think in this case ♥ is the OS suit, so to ask for a ♣ switch you'd need to play ♦Q at trick 1. If you want ♦ continued you encourage, and if you want a ♥ switch you just discourage ♦. The terminology suggests a suit is obvious to switch to, but this hasn't got anything to do with actual card play theory (although the rules are made up so that it leans towards it). The point of not just playing something Lavinthal-like (discourage = lowest remaining suit ; unnecessary honor = highest remaining suit) is to avoid playing too many unnecessary honors for no good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 How does OS improve on suit preference? It seems to me that you're not signalling about the diamond suit at all: you're simply playing "low = dummy's weaker suit, high = dummy's stronger suit (or no preference)". To me that seems no better than "low = dummy's lower suit, high = dummy's higher suit; with no preference signal for dummy's stronger suit". 1. OS is not ignoring the suit led (diamonds here) but give also high priority to the obvious shift suit and some lower priority to the other suits. in some cases both partners need to be careful, you should sometimes give the least damaging signal, for example with xxx in club as here assuming you don't have the A or K in club, it seems worse that partner will open club, you rather tell him to continue diamond, or just play passive. On the other side, the partner should not be too fast to open a suit if the tricks are not likely to run away.2. you are right that OS doesn't do any magic of adding more information to the signals, what it does is clear for the partnership the priority of the suits, the example here is great, playing with an expert partner without OS, i would discourage diamond hoping for a club switch but partner might think i am looking for hearts. playing OS with a my inter/adv partner I would discourage and it would be clear to both of us what suit i'm looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.