[Badmonster]

Recently someone told me that Ogust was a huge addition to the bidding arsenal and I should learn it as soon as possible. I wanted to get some opinions.

I've had the same conversation about coded nines and tens. I'd like to hear some opinions and arguments for and against.

[Rossoneri]

Ogust: Depends on how you play your weak 2s. Most useful when the strength of your weak2s can very greatly (e.g. JT9xxx possible and AKQxxx possible) Ogust would allow your partner to determine how good your suit is. If your pre-empts are somewhat solid, more useful to free up 2NT for other gadgets like feature ask.

Not too sure about coded 10s and 9s, never played it before personally.

[Trinidad]

I happen to like Ogust. But then again, we have always had an aggressive style of weak twos and that is when Ogust can come in handy.

On the other hand, I think Ogust is overrated and not thought through completely. I like to be aggressive, but I will not bid on a bad hand and a bad suit. (I will open 2Sp on ♠QJTxxx and nothing else, but not on ♠QJxxxx, a king and a queen.) This means that obviously, you will have to adjust your responses to Ogust to your style of weak twos.

Summarizing: You can easily do without Ogust, but if you play it, make it fit your style of weak two's.

Rik

[pclayton]

Ogust is fine by an unpassed hand.

Coded 9-10's aren't getting the bad rap they once did, but many still won't play them because they give away too much information.

[han]

Oghust is so simple, asking this question is more work than just learning it. (edit: by which I don't mean that it was a bad question to ask)

I still dislike coded 9's and 10's and I'm still hearing a lot of bad rap.

[foo]

Badmonster, on Jul 1 2007, 09:58 AM, said:

Recently someone told me that Ogust was a huge addition to the bidding arsenal and I should learn it as soon as possible. I wanted to get some opinions.

I've had the same conversation about coded nines and tens. I'd like to hear some opinions and arguments for and against.

Trinidad is correct that Ogust allows you to constructively handle a wider variety of hands than Feature does. In particular, Ogust allows a wider range of suit quality in the suit opened. Playing Feature, it is much more difficult for pd to know what to do when they have a good hand if your Weak Two's can contain a "bad suit".


My advice is do not play either "J Denies, T implies" or "Coded T and 9's" unless you are being paid by Declarer to do so...

[cherdano]

Ogust is worth it especially if you use the opportunity to discuss your weak two style with partner.

[hrothgar]

"It Depends".

Here's a somewhat more lengthy (and hopefully more useful) answer.

I think that its extremely useful to use a first step response to a weak 2M opening as an artificial asking bid. In the case of a 2♠ opening, the asking bid is 2NT. In the case of a 2♥ opening, the asking bid can be shifted to 2♠ (with 2NT used as a foring bid with 5+ Spades)

This asking bid can be used to get information about a number of different questions:

1. Some people use this as a range ask (show me a feature if you have a maximum hand)

2. Other folks eschew the range ask and prefer to simple ask whether or not partner has shortage

3. A large number of folks ask partner to clarify suit quality and range (OGUST)

I suspect but can prove that the utility of the different methods depends a lot on the nature of your weak 2 openings. Its entirely possible that a shortness ask is the most useful over a second seat preempt while OGUST shines more over relatively undisciplined first seat preempts.

[P_Marlowe]

Badmonster, on Jul 1 2007, 09:58 AM, said:

Recently someone told me that Ogust was a huge addition to the bidding arsenal and I should learn it as soon as possible. I wanted to get some opinions.

I've had the same conversation about coded nines and tens. I'd like to hear some opinions and arguments for and against.

Oguts is ok, if you play wide ranging weak twos,
if your weak twos are regular based on a 5 card
suit, it makes a lot of sense to find out, if
the suit was a 5 suit or a 6 card suit, this is
possible with a modified version of Ogust.

Coded nines and tens: If a method provides a clear
picture for partner, it also gives quite often a clear
picture to the enemy, I would say it evens out, you
either like it, or you dont.
Additionally the problemtic cases are not that often,
usually you will end up leading another card.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

I cannot point at all to why, but I did not like "coded nines and tens" when I tried them years ago.

However, as a related concept to some degree, I really liked the advice I read from one of the Brock's about "power tens." I tried it with one partnership, and I felt good about the experience. I have no idea whether it helped or not, but I did have a fuzzy feeling.

The idea to power 10's is that the lead of a 10 is from a "power position." You will have a touching card (J10 or 109) plus a higher honor (AJ10, KJ10, or A/K/Q-109).

Without "power," you lead the Jack from J10 or the 9 from 109.

This may sound like "Jack or Nine denies, 10 implies," and hence not much different. But, something to consider if you like these types of leads.

Now, I do neither.

[mikeh]

Ogust: I have recently been playing a variant:

3♣: either I opened a 5 card suit, or Ihave 6 but a truly ugly hand: 3♦ asks

3♦: 6 card suit, nothing special, not completely ugly

3♥: I like my hand due to shape: good weak 2 with shape

3♠: I like my hand due to high card: nearly a 1-level opener

I have some concerns that this doesn't convey much specific, especially the 3♥, but it seems to work so far. The 3♣ gadget has proved very valuable.


As for coded 9/10s... please, I encourage everyone to play them. They aren't used enough... by my opponents. Nothing makes life easier than the lead of the J against 3N, when the Q is in dummy.... I have yet to lose an avoidable trick after that lead... and as declarer I truly appreciate the info given by the 9 and 10 as well. Please, please...try them... your opps will be as happy as I am

[SoTired]

coded 9 & 10's are like MUD: They look good on paper and they satisfy our craving for deterministic leads, but in practice, they give more critical info to declarer than partner.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

coded 9 & 10's are like MUD: They look good on paper and they satisfy our craving for deterministic leads, but in practice, they give more critical info to declarer than partner.

Since when does MUD look good on paper? MUD to me is just unclear for everyone.

As for 9s/Ts, it's easy to construct examples where it removes declarer's guess. However, it's also easy to construct examples where it removes partner's guess. No one has ever really demonstrated to my satisfaction which of these situations is clearly more frequent. It all seems to be personal preference, not really careful statistical study or computer simulation.

Also there is a half-way approach suggested by Wirgen ("Scanian leads" in an old bridge world) that leads coded T/9 from some combinations but not others, feeling that some of these combos are more help for the defense while others are more help for declarer.

If you do play coded 9s/Ts, one thing you can do is psyche the lead of a jack or whatever if you think partner is unlikely to get the lead (opps have bid strongly to 3nt & you have the rest of the deck), so that you don't pass info to declarer if partner is unlikely to need it.

[neilkaz]

I prefer high card feature to Ogust if playing decent weak 2's and a modified Ogust if playing freewheeling weak 2's.

As for coded leads. I play them with a PD who really loves them and will do my best to convince her otherwise since I feel they help declarer at least as much.

Playing vs coded leads, I sometimes (my declarer play is superior to my mediocre defensive skills) darn near can have the whole hand figured out when I see the lead (especially if the opening leader had made a bid that seems to limit his HCP)!

Re: MUD..I have sometimes used those leads for years, but they do confuse PD's at times.

.. neilkaz ..

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Jul 2 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

Ogust: I have recently been playing a variant:

3♣: either I opened a 5 card suit, or Ihave 6 but a truly ugly hand: 3♦ asks

3♦: 6 card suit, nothing special, not completely ugly

3♥: I like my hand due to shape: good weak 2 with shape

3♠: I like my hand due to high card: nearly a 1-level opener

I have some concerns that this doesn't convey much specific, especially the 3♥, but it seems to work so far. The 3♣ gadget has proved very valuable.

Perhaps the advantage is that they do not convey much.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Ogust is fine for a first try at bidding over your own weak two bids.

I do not play 5-6 card weak two bids in 1st and 2nd seats. In 3rd seat, all bets are off. 5+ card suits and a much wider range of HCP.

I played a lot of Ogust in my early years of bridge. Later I started playing 2NT 'asking' for shortness which seems to get better results.

If you are inviting and partner has a 'fitting' shortness, you bid game. If you are inviting and partner has a 'misfitting shortness', you sign off. If 'balanced and max.' partner will drive to game.

Currently I like to play 2M-2NT=clubs, 3C=diamonds, 3D=hearts(inv. if 2H opened and 'showing' hearts if 2S opened. Partner normally accepts the transfer and you can now 'invite' by returning to his suit 'having already shown values' in the 'transfer' suit.

You are using an Ogust type style and exchange additional information because partner will know to place a higher value cards in a given suit 'that you have shown an interest in.'

A direct invite 2H-3D* or 2S-3H* shows general values and no concentration of values. Are you max. or min. is the question.

2M-3M 'raise' is a normal type 'blocking bid.

Regards,
Robert

[pclayton]

Im pretty sure I saw one pair playing J denies in the USBF R16 but Im hard pressed to think of whom.

One area where they are useful is in middle game leading through declarer.

[awm]

The thing is, if you don't play coded 9s and Ts, you only experience it when it's used against you.

This means you'll notice when the convention tells you something that helps you play the hand. You are much less likely to notice when the convention helps your opponents to defend accurately -- after all, they might've guessed to defend accurately anyway (just as you might've guessed the right declarer play anyway), and you're usually not that deep into the defenders' thought processes.

As someone who often does play coded 9s and Ts, I have noticed multiple occasions when I was not playing the convention and was forced to guess what to do on an early trick, only to get it wrong. This is surprising because, as mentioned, I do play coded 9s and Ts with a substantial number of partners and still have had enough "wow I wish we were playing coded leads" instances to notice.

On the other hand, I've never noticed a time when playing Rusinow helped me (except when declarer doesn't look at our CC and thinks we play standard leads), or when not playing Rusinow caused a problem. I can never remember sitting at the table thinking "wow I wish we played Rusinow, then I would really know what to do in this situation." And I can think of a several times when Rusinow leads caused a problem because of a lead from honor-doubleton. Then again, plenty of players swear by Rusinow too, including some of those who are so dead-set against coded 9s and Ts.

To each their own I guess, but I often find it amusing that a lot of people are so eager to denigrate the methods of others when it seems pretty likely that they've never really tried those methods themselves.