[gprentice]

If your partner overcalls and you support their suit, when they lead the ace on opening lead, is it ok to give a suit preference signal instead of an attitude signal when there are two or three cards in dummy. If there are three cards to the queen in dummy, should the signal be "attitude" first?

[mike777]

How would that work, suit pref?
Attitude says continue or shift.

[gprentice]

My partner wants to do it. When partner leads the ace and there's a singleton in dummy, it's normal to give suit preference - low card wants the lower non trump suit? If there are two cards in dummy, is an attitude signal better in case declarer has three to the queen?
If there are 3 cards in dummy but no queen, can you give suit preference on the ace lead - partner follows up with the king then switches?
If there are 3 cards in dummy, including the queen, can you still give suit pref and partner switches immediately?

[mike777]

 gprentice, on 2025-January-16, 14:22, said:

My partner wants to do it. When partner leads the ace and there's a singleton in dummy, it's normal to give suit preference - low card wants the lower non trump suit? If there are two cards in dummy, is an attitude signal better in case declarer has three to the queen?
If there are 3 cards in dummy but no queen, can you give suit preference on the ace lead - partner follows up with the king then switches?
If there are 3 cards in dummy, including the queen, can you still give suit pref and partner switches immediately?

And the problem is what? Can you do it?
Are you asking is it legal?

[gprentice]

I'm asking if it's a good system of course.

[jillybean]

gprentice, on 2025-January-16, 15:28, said:

I'm asking if it's a good system of course.

We knew that. Mike777 sounds like a lawyer.

I am now playing almost exclusively suit pref after the opening lead, where we play Obvious Shift and I find it very useful.
No idea if it's best.

[mike777]

99% of playing obvious shift at trick one is attitude not suit preference.

[mike777]

 gprentice, on 2025-January-16, 15:28, said:

I'm asking if it's a good system of course.

What signal system is best at our level of play is open to debate.

Truly top players will ask, what does partner need to know on this hand
Then they tell them.
In other words it depends, 😊

In other words WC players, play everything and pick and choose every individual hand.

[smerriman]

Your assumption appears to be that partner is guaranteed to have the king when leading the ace, in which case suit preference sounds reasonable. Though in that case you may still want partner to underlead their king to your queen if you need to lead through declarer..

Alternatively, do you never lead your bid-and-raised suit when holding the A but no K? That's very rare in a side suit, but perhaps not as much in our suit. In these cases, attitude may be quite important..

(I just realised those two concepts don't go together, since you may not want to encourage with the queen if partner might not have the king. But at least one might be worth consideration )

[akwoo]

I've played that the opening lead of an ace asks for a suit preference signal. Always.

It's quite playable, especially since following with a middle card (for no preference) will tend to indicate a desire for continuing the suit.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-January-16, 17:07, said:

99% of playing obvious shift at trick one is attitude not suit preference.

Playing obvious shift, "attitude at trick 1 is not about partners suit on isolation. it is an indication of whether you would like a continuation or whether you would like a switch to the obvious or weaker side suit"
Page 20
"A switch in time" Pamela and Mathew Granovetter

It involves signaling for the obvious shift, suit preference there after. It's all about timing

[awm]

It seems very useful to be able to signal that you have doubleton so that you can score a ruff against a suit contract. I wouldn’t want to give this up for a suit preference signal.

Against notrump it makes some sense, especially if you can assume declaring side has a real stopper (not always true in my experience).

[akwoo]

awm, on 2025-January-17, 09:14, said:

It seems very useful to be able to signal that you have doubleton so that you can score a ruff against a suit contract. I wouldn’t want to give this up for a suit preference signal.

Against notrump it makes some sense, especially if you can assume declaring side has a real stopper (not always true in my experience).

Ace for suit preference means that, in practice, you usually lead K from AKx(x)(x).

[mikeh]

awm, on 2025-January-17, 09:14, said:

It seems very useful to be able to signal that you have doubleton so that you can score a ruff against a suit contract. I wouldn’t want to give this up for a suit preference signal.

Against notrump it makes some sense, especially if you can assume declaring side has a real stopper (not always true in my experience).

If you have a doubleton, playing OS, you merely indicate that you like the suit.

In my experience, the problem with OS is that sometimes you have to encourage the opening lead even when you don’t like it! The difficulty lies in the mandatory binary nature of the signal. Unlike in standard methods, your signal isn’t simply ‘I like the suit or I don’t like the suit’. It is, instead, ‘I prefer this suit to the OS suit (defined by rigid rules and based upon the information both defenders possess…the auction and dummy) or the converse ‘I prefer the OS suit to this one’.

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.

[jdiana]

I looked into Obvious Shift once a few years ago but concluded that it required way too much memorization for me. But I think that about a lot of things.

[mike777]

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

If you have a doubleton, playing OS, you merely indicate that you like the suit.

In my experience, the problem with OS is that sometimes you have to encourage the opening lead even when you don’t like it! The difficulty lies in the mandatory binary nature of the signal. Unlike in standard methods, your signal isn’t simply ‘I like the suit or I don’t like the suit’. It is, instead, ‘I prefer this suit to the OS suit (defined by rigid rules and based upon the information both defenders possess…the auction and dummy) or the converse ‘I prefer the OS suit to this one’.

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 are required to still think. If you blindly follow partners signal, OS does not relieve you from responsibility
of thinking about the defense of the hand.

I would add you do have the third option for a shift to the non obvious suit.
At the table this can rise to ethical issues and hesitancy.
With screens less so..

However it takes a lot of practice and sometimes not practical to signal for the non obvious suit

You can never ask for a shift to Trumps
You need to figure this out on your own

MOST IMPORTANT is rule one and two
You are not obligated to follow partner..

If you know how the defense should go do it.

You are still required to think, not blindly follow partner

OS is there to help you improve.

[smerriman]

 awm, on 2025-January-17, 09:14, said:

It seems very useful to be able to signal that you have doubleton so that you can score a ruff against a suit contract. I wouldn’t want to give this up for a suit preference signal.

In the OP's case this is only about when you have raised partner's suit, so you can't have a doubleton.

[gprentice]

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?

[mycroft]

Thankfully - provided you religiously pause as third-hand "to think about the entire hand" (especially if declarer does not) - the ethical concerns about OS should go away. This is unlike O/E signalling if it applies at other tricks besides the first.

You should have time within your normal pause to work out the OS suit, work out whether you prefer it to partner's suit or not, and what your best lie is if you hate both (or if there's some sort of Alarm Signal you can make).

I do realize that many - if not most - players (of OS or otherwise) do not religiously take time at trick 1 as declarer (before playing from dummy) or third hand (especially if declarer insta-plays). If you play OS, or any other similar signalling system with potential issues, don't be one of many, I guess?

[mycroft]

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?

Bridge with Dan link, the first non-ad link (for me) for a search on "Obvious Shift rules".

Quote

Does it apply to the first trick only

Yes. The signal is "I want a shift to the Obvious suit" or "I don't want a shift to the Obvious suit". Usually it is relative to opening leader's suit, but that is the question being answered.

The explanation after the "what is the OS suit" rules should give enough information for you to have a feel for the scheme; of course this is very much a summary, there's a whole book of details.