[awm]

Jlall, on Jul 2 2007, 12:54 AM, said:

It is not hard to tell if a hand where you got it wrong because you didnt know whether your partner had an interior sequence or not came up believe it or not. You don't have to play coded 10s and 9s to see this.

While this seems to make sense, most people's first reaction when they get a guess like this wrong isn't to think about playing a different lead convention.

You've probably played a lot more bridge hands than I have, and certainly more in the last five years or so. Yet I can think of at least two distinct instances off the top of my head where I was forced to guess whether partner had lead from a sequence early in the hand and got it wrong because of not playing coded leads, despite playing coded leads in more than half my boards over this time period. It's hard for me to believe you've actually never had this situation come up.

[Codo]

I never understood the argument: coded 9 and tens give away the suit to declarer.
Of course these signals make it easier for partner and declarer to read the suit.

If you don´t want to give any information to declarer: Don´t signal at all. Lead random cards.

If you wish to deliver information to partner, you must life with the risk, that declarer will read your signals too. It is your choice how accurate your signals should be. Coded 9s and tens deliver more information then a simple top of a sequence lead. This helps pd and declarer to read the suit and you must decide what is better for your side.

Justins example of AQx opps xxx was a nice example of the downside.
But I remember some hands where I hold something like Axx as defender in the suit my pd lead. No values in this suit in dummy. Switch or continue? In these cases coded 10 and 9s helped a lot, espacially when there is the risk of a running suit in dummy and you need to cash out as soon as possible.

[han]

Not all Signalling situations are equal Codo. There are situations where you can recognize that partner needs your signal, then you certainly give it. There are alos situation where you know that partner will usually want a signal, for example, partner leads the ace or king at trick one. Then, you also agree to give some signal. In the experience of most posters here, coded tens and nines are more often useful to declarer than to partner.

[skjaeran]

Coded 10s and 9s is similar to some part of Vinje leads which I used nearly 20 years ago. And also in some aspects comparable to Journalist leads.

My first encounter with Journalist leads was in the Nordic Junior Teams in 1987, when we played a danish team. I was declarer, and in two 3NTs where I got a J (denies) and a ten (implies) leads I could more or less claim both contracts (only overtrick(s) were at stake) after the opening lead. At the other table both contracts failed after standard leads, when the danish declarer guessed wrong at trick one.

That being said, I've used Journalist leads myself in regular partnerships later, with some success. My clear impression is that they give away too much information (that declarer is the long run winner). But there's no doubt that on some hands the defending side has the upper hand.

Like Mike, I'm happy if opps use leads of this kind.

[Codo]

Hannie,

I absolutely agree with you- you should deliver more informations when they are useful for pd then for declarer. And signaling situations are not equal.

Unluckily in most hands it is far from clear whom we will help more with our leads and signals.
We are very seldom in a position where we can judge right in the beginning of a hand that we better don´t signal at all as we will surely help declarer more then our partner. There are hands where it is pretty clear, but in the majority of hands you cannot be sure.

I believe that most posters dislike coded 9s and 10s, because they remember all the good times they had when their opps used them.
But when does this happen? If you have just one honour no matter if this is in dummy or hand, you don´t care about the lead.
If you hold AK KQ or QJ, you don´t care about it. In all these cases the lead does not help you at all, but it may had helped the defence.

But whenever you hold two non touching honours, like AQ you as a declarer are very lucky about a lead with coded 9 and 10s. At least as long as the queen is in dummy. Else you have no problem anyway.
In this case these leads will often help you as declarer.
Whenever you hold just one honour or KQ, they help the defenders or are neutral.
But in these cases, you - as the declarer- don´t care much, you take your trick(s) one way or another. So I believe, that it is more a matter of which hands you remember then of how good or bad this lead is?

My own experience is not as bad as yours or Justins. Especially together with Obvious shift, I found that we took more tricks in defence and we took them much easier then with a bread and butter signaling method. This is just a feeling too.

And maybe I simply forgot these hands where declarer "guessed" right and just remembered those where it worked?

[Al_U_Card]

Ogust, is preferable not only for the inherent ability to contain way more info than the feature/shortness ask but also for what it does not contain. You ask for a feature, pard shows a diamond feature. You bid 3NT and the lead is.....A DIAMOND! Why? To knock out your entry to dummy because you are too short in his suit to get there unless he has an outside entry.

btw, in my Ogust sequence, the good hand = contains a feature

also I like the alphabetical version for memory savings

bh bs
bh gs
gh bs
gh gs

hand before suit and bad before good.

[kenrexford]

Oh -- memory tools for Ogust. I always get confused when playing regular Ogust with people, because my parents taught me their version, which had 3♦ as a good hand bad suit because you wore your diamond on your hand, and 3♥ good suit bad hand because your heart is under your suit.

[jillybean]

Al_U_Card, on Jul 2 2007, 04:40 AM, said:

also I like the alphabetical version for memory savings

bh bs
bh gs
gh bs
gh gs

gmta, well almost

I use the same memory aid but in a different order:

3♣ bad hand : bad suit
3♦ good hand: bad suit
3♥ bad hand: good suit
3♠ good hand : good suit
3nt suit = AKQxxx

What is standard?

jb

[Free]

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice... So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

[keylime]

I used to play coded 9/10's religiously until I started giving up bad results (ironically while I lived in Nanaimo). These days, only if I'm playing through declarer into a J/Q in dummy will I play them. Otherwise, no dice.

Ogust I think is ok - there's a few variations of it but I think it works well. I had to remember them this way (along lines of Orwell):

dug, bg, gb, gg, dpg (double ungood, bad-good, good-bad, good-good, double plus good)

[foo]

jillybean2, on Jul 2 2007, 07:10 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jul 2 2007, 04:40 AM, said:

also I like the alphabetical version for memory savings

bh bs
bh gs
gh bs
gh gs

gmta, well almost

I use the same memory aid but in a different order:

3♣ bad hand : bad suit
3♦ good hand: bad suit
3♥ bad hand: good suit
3♠ good hand : good suit
3nt suit = AKQxxx

What is standard?

jb

Al has given the variation I see most often in play; and you have listed the piece he's missing of 3N= AKQxxx (many don't remember that part of Ogust. Well done.)

The "bad" hands are going to be more frequent than the "good" hands, so it makes sense to have them be the 2 lowest of the responses.

[jillybean]

Always good to be on the same wavelength as your partner, we hope.

Bridge Guys lists these variants and more

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...gustSystem.html

[cherdano]

awm, on Jul 1 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

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.

I am very surprised by your experience with Rusinow. Han and I played them for a while, and there certainly were a lot of situations where they were helpful: you can play A for attitude and K for count (or unblock at NT) without giving up anything (of course you can do this in standard too but then you lose the sometimes needed attitude signal when leading from KQx(x) ). I found having this choice when leading from AK quite often very helpful to avoid trick-2-guesses.

[kenrexford]

Free, on Jul 2 2007, 07:17 AM, said:

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice... So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

Yeah -- I never understood that rationale. When I bid Ogust after a 2♦ opening, seeking 3NT, I am usually more interested in suit quality than in the overall "strength" of the hand.

[mikeh]

awm, on Jul 2 2007, 12:40 AM, said:

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.

The difficulty with this argument is that I, for one, have played coded 9's and 10's... and I learned to dislike them because they gave away too much information to good declarers.... so your assumption that those who dislike them because they have not played them is wrong.... at least in one case

[foo]

mikeh, on Jul 2 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

The difficulty with this argument is that I, for one, have played coded 9's and 10's... and I learned to dislike them because they gave away too much information to good declarers.... so your assumption that those who dislike them because they have not played them is wrong.... at least in one case

...and for me as well.

[han]

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

Free, on Jul 2 2007, 07:17 AM, said:

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice...  So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

Yeah -- I never understood that rationale. When I bid Ogust after a 2♦ opening, seeking 3NT, I am usually more interested in suit quality than in the overall "strength" of the hand.

I think that's (more than) reasonable, but my understanding is also that what Free says is "standard".

[kenrexford]

Hannie, on Jul 2 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 2 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

Free, on Jul 2 2007, 07:17 AM, said:

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice...  So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

Yeah -- I never understood that rationale. When I bid Ogust after a 2♦ opening, seeking 3NT, I am usually more interested in suit quality than in the overall "strength" of the hand.

I think that's (more than) reasonable, but my understanding is also that what Free says is "standard".

For what it's worth, I'm not even playing Ogust anymore with one partner after 2♦ openings. Rather, 2NT is only "semi-forcing," with Opener allowed to bid:

Pass = forcing (just kidding--shows acceptance of that alternative)
3♣ = Fair 2♦ opening -- can check on 5-3 major fits if 3M would be 4-card
3♦ = must-play-here
3M = max, 4-card here (or 3-card if not that sick)
3NT = player suit

[pclayton]

Re: Ogust

When I was taught Ogust 3D meant a good hand. The memory aid was diamonds goes on your hand.

About 7 years ago I learned that 3H showed the good hand. The memory aid is now 'hearts in hand'.

I dont know if the standard changed, or this is just a regional (or continental) difference.

By the way, I have the agreement with my pards that if we choose to open a weak 2 with 5, that the suit quality is what dictates a 'good' suit, and not the length.

[jdonn]

I don't understand either of those memory aids. I have always learned 3♦ is bad hand good suit and 3♥ is good hand bad suit. The memory aid is good hands bid more than bad hands! Yeah that's a tough one lol.