[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Playing Ogust our partnership agreement is a bad hand is < 9 points
and a bad suit doesn't contain 3 of the 5 honors.

The bidding goes:
2H P 2NT P
3C Showing a bad hand and a bad suit.

North alerts and west asks for an explanation. Does it have to
be as specific as my definition of our agreement?

Jerry D.

[Stephen Tu]

Yes. The spirit of the game is full disclosure of agreements.

[Vampyr]

jerdonald, on 2015-November-17, 20:13, said:

Playing Ogust our partnership agreement is a bad hand is < 9 points

Does this mean that you open weak twos with more than 9 points?

[Zelandakh]

Not only does it have to be as specific as the definition given but it needs to be even more specific if you have additional information that you have noticed from your partner's trends beyond what the explicit agreement says. For example, if you have experience that partner would only preempt vulnerable with a band hand and bad suit when holding a side shortage, you should disclose this too.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Our point range for weak 2's is 5-10. This is fairly standard in the US(2/1).
Jerry D.

[1eyedjack]

Don't assume that 99% of your opponents are complying with the laws when they limit their disclosure to "bad hand, bad suit", the reality being that their understanding is more explicitly defined. That is not a reason to follow their example.

[aguahombre]

This should be easy. Don't use the words good or bad at all. Just tell them what the bid shows. 9 or ten HCP & 3 of 5 honors in the suit; 9 or ten HCP & less than 3 honors in the suit; 5-8 HCP and 3/5; 5-8 points & less than 3 tops in the suit.

If you cannot disclose the agreement that easily, don't have the agreement.

[fromageGB]

aguahombre, on 2015-November-18, 16:40, said:

If you cannot disclose the agreement that easily, don't have the agreement.

I agree in this example, but sometimes if you give the full detail "will have this except when this it will be that, or if this then that, but on this it could be that if the other" it confuses the hell out of some people. In a club setting it may be better to say "most usually this, but there are some exceptions" and let them ask a follow-up if they are interested. I don't think complex agreements per se should be discouraged.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on 2015-November-18, 16:40, said:

This should be easy. Don't use the words good or bad at all. Just tell them what the bid shows. 9 or ten HCP & 3 of 5 honors in the suit; 9 or ten HCP & less than 3 honors in the suit; 5-8 HCP and 3/5; 5-8 points & less than 3 tops in the suit.

If you cannot disclose the agreement that easily, don't have the agreement.

Except for many it's more qualitative than that. Some 7's are stellar and some 9's suck. 8's can fall into either category.

If partner bid 3C I'd say that the suit is worse than 2/3 and he's on the lower half of his range.

[mycroft]

Some people walrus their Ogust responses. I don't. I will, however, give them a dead minimum/reasonable maximum for that seat and vul, and let them decide where the good/bad boundary would lie.

Oh, one side I do have an agreement on with my regular partners: a good suit is "traditional disciplined": 2/top3 or 3/top 5 (not QJT). Especially because at favourable, JTxxxx is more than a minimum suit! So of course, I disclose that.