[ewj]

---

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)

[Phil]

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.

[WGF_Flame]

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

[aguahombre]

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.

[PhilKing]

A small club can be right even when West prefers hearts. For example, if West has x Axx Q9xxx Jxxx.

[WGF_Flame]

 PhilKing, on 2013-March-17, 10:19, said:

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.

[PhilKing]

 WGF_Flame, on 2013-March-17, 11:00, said:

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.

[akhare]

+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.

[gnasher]

 PhilKing, on 2013-March-17, 11:25, said:

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.

[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-17, 12:48, said:

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.

[cherdano]

 WGF_Flame, on 2013-March-17, 11:00, said:

Yes but can be wrong on many hands where west doesn't have 5 diamonds.

 PhilKing, on 2013-March-17, 11:25, said:

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.

[PhilKing]

 cherdano, on 2013-March-17, 13:23, said:

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.

[ewj]

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?

[WGF_Flame]

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.

[WGF_Flame]

 ewj, on 2013-March-17, 13:56, said:

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.

[PhilKing]

 WGF_Flame, on 2013-March-17, 14:00, said:

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.

[ewj]

 WGF_Flame, on 2013-March-17, 14:08, said:

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 ....Obviously appreciate that you can't do everything...if dummy was Kxx Qxx JTxx xxx, what would be the "obvious" switch? A ♣ still?

[WGF_Flame]

 ewj, on 2013-March-17, 14:52, said:

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 ....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.

[Free]

I see some fine DD defenses here.

[WGF_Flame]

 Free, on 2013-March-18, 04:41, said:

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.