[mike777]

 gprentice, on 2025-January-17, 16:52, said:

I'm having difficulty finding out what "obvious shift" is and the AI machines were no help. Does anyone have a link to a clear explanation? Does it apply to the first trick only and is when partner (who is on lead) wins the opening lead - you encourage (play low) if the obvious shift is correct and discourage if the obvious shift is wrong. If partner continues at trick two with the suit they first lead, what does the third in hand person show with their next card. Does it apply against both suit and no trump contracts? Does it apply regardless of whether the opening lead suit was bid and raised by the defenders. If it's not a "trick one" scheme, what is it?

It is a book. It is a book about defense.
Granovetter s goal was to write a book for intermediate level players not experts not world class players on defense.
A switch in Time.

His goal was to explain the mind of wc defenders to intermediate level players.

1. Partner has lead vs suit or NT, you are third hand at trick one...you see dummy..defend..
2. That is the vast majority of the book..
3. It is called obvious shift for several reasons but the number one goal
Is to finish the book and say I now have a way of planning the defense at trick one.
It is a method of being on the same page as partner in defending the hand.

If you are an expert defender the vast majority of the book is 'obvious" to you.
It is already second nature to you what suits to attack, what suits to not attack.
It is "obvious".

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-January-17, 17:57, said:

It is a book. It is a book about defense.
Granovetter s goal was to write a book for intermediate level players not experts not world class players on defense.
A switch in Time.

His goal was to explain the mind of wc defenders to intermediate level players.

1. Partner has lead vs suit or NT, you are third hand at trick one...you see dummy..defend..
2. That is the vast majority of the book..
3. It is called obvious shift for several reasons but the number one goal
Is to finish the book and say I now have a way of planning the defense at trick one.
It is a method of being on the same page as partner in defending the hand.

If you are an expert defender the vast majority of the book is 'obvious" to you.
It is already second nature to you what suits to attack, what suits to not attack.
It is "obvious".

I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was explaining the mind of WC defenders. Rodwell, a better player and one of the most frequent winners of WC events, doesn’t think much of obvious switch at all.

There are aspects of what Granovetter teaches that are standard for experts….’everyone’ plays SP in trump, as an example. But I don’t think that many play the full OS as described in the book

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-January-17, 12:08, said:

So if you really dread a switch to the OS suit, and you don’t like partner’s lead, you have to choose your lie. As with O/E carding, this can give rise to ethical issues when a defender hesitates before signalling.

You can also signal for the unusual shift, if you have a honor card.

As for the ethical issues, I expect those playing OS are thinking OS, if partner is on lead, from the moment they spread their cards.
I think we have a many more opportunities for education regarding ethics before we start focusing on those whom play OS.

[mike777]

 mikeh, on 2025-January-17, 19:29, said:

I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was explaining the mind of WC defenders. Rodwell, a better player and one of the most frequent winners of WC events, doesn’t think much of obvious switch at all.

There are aspects of what Granovetter teaches that are standard for experts….’everyone’ plays SP in trump, as an example. But I don’t think that many play the full OS as described in the book

I might have phrased it incorrectly.

He is not saying that WC players play obvious shift. He is not saying these are the rules WC follow.

Granovetter may have failed in his goal in writing the book. His goal was to explain wC defenders thinking process in terms that intermediate players could use at the table.

Perhaps something was lost in translation or perhaps Granovetter was just plain wrong in how WC players defend.
If Rodwell says the book just got it wrong, period, fair enough.