BBO Discussion Forums: What's your favorite system after weak twos ? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What's your favorite system after weak twos ?

#21 User is offline   OleBerg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,950
  • Joined: 2008-April-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen
  • Interests:Model-Railways.

Posted 2010-June-02, 10:19

MarkDean, on Jun 2 2010, 04:44 AM, said:

I usually play what partner wants, then always just bid 4M or pass.

I do have trouble with ogust though. I often find myself with an average weak 2 and sort of arbitrarily decide if I should call it good hand bad suit or bad hand good suit.

Not my style, but it certainly has it's charm.
_____________________________________

Do not underestimate the power of the dark side. Or the ninth trumph.

Best Regards Ole Berg

_____________________________________

We should always assume 2/1 unless otherwise stated, because:

- If the original poster didn't bother to state his system, that means that he thinks it's obvious what he's playing. The only people who think this are 2/1 players.


Gnasher
0

#22 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,290
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2010-June-02, 10:44

In The Modern Losing Trick Count, Ron Klinger suggested that a weak two bid typically shows a 7 or 8 loser hand with either 1 or 2 (rarely 3) of the top three honors. His schedule of responses to 2NT Ogust is:

3: 8 losers, 1 top honor ("bad hand, bad suit")
3: 8 losers, 2 top honors ("bad hand, good suit")
3: 7 losers, 1 top honor (" good hand, bad suit")
3: 7 losers, 2 top honors ("good hand, good suit")
3NT: 3 top honors (this hand will always have at most 7 losers).

Memory aid: "Minors are minimum, 12123".

Solves the "arbitrary decision" question. :lol:
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#23 User is offline   mikegill 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 2006-May-26

Posted 2010-June-02, 17:46

For a while now we have been playing
-new suits = NF
-2N forces 3 showing one of:
1. dump into 3
2. forcing new suit bid
3. invitation without 3+ support
-3 shows inv+ with 3+ support and is like OGUST.
-4 is keycard and 4 is an ART slam try

2n->3n asks opener to pass with either a good suit or a really bad suit, 2n->3M is looking for a max and a good suit.

This seems to work well - opener doesn't have to guess whether to show a good hand or not with a shapely weak 2 since he knows about opener's support.
0

#24 User is offline   MarkDean 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 595
  • Joined: 2008-April-30
  • Location:Pleasanton, CA, US

Posted 2010-June-02, 21:28

karlson, on Jun 1 2010, 07:56 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Jun 1 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

I usually play what partner wants, then always just bid 4M or pass. 

I do have trouble with ogust though.  I often find myself with an average weak 2 and sort of arbitrarily decide if I should call it good hand bad suit or bad hand good suit.

I think if you're going to play ogust, you should have a strict definition of 2/3 top honors for good suit. A good percentage of the time responder is trying to decide whether 3n is the right game. Internal solidity is nice to have for your preempt, but it may not make much difference once you have found a fit.

So what do you respond with the following two hands, all white first seat IMPs:

A) KQ9653 5 QT4 742
:lol: AJT953 5 QT4 742?

It seems weird to call B bad / bad, or A good / good, but it also seems strange to call B a good hand and A a bad one.
0

#25 User is offline   Jlall 

  • Follower of 655321
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,293
  • Joined: 2008-December-05
  • Interests:drinking, women, bridge...what else?

Posted 2010-June-02, 22:03

Interesting Adam I have always felt that feature has helped me a lot in the 3N vs 4M decision, and ogust leaves me guessing where partners side value is.
0

#26 User is offline   karlson 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 974
  • Joined: 2005-April-06

Posted 2010-June-02, 23:08

MarkDean, on Jun 2 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

karlson, on Jun 1 2010, 07:56 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Jun 1 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

I usually play what partner wants, then always just bid 4M or pass. 

I do have trouble with ogust though.  I often find myself with an average weak 2 and sort of arbitrarily decide if I should call it good hand bad suit or bad hand good suit.

I think if you're going to play ogust, you should have a strict definition of 2/3 top honors for good suit. A good percentage of the time responder is trying to decide whether 3n is the right game. Internal solidity is nice to have for your preempt, but it may not make much difference once you have found a fit.

So what do you respond with the following two hands, all white first seat IMPs:

A) KQ9653 5 QT4 742
:lol: AJT953 5 QT4 742?

It seems weird to call B bad / bad, or A good / good, but it also seems strange to call B a good hand and A a bad one.

shrug. I don't have a problem with calling (a) good/good. Yeah, it's a minimum.
0

#27 User is offline   nigel_k 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,207
  • Joined: 2009-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2010-June-03, 01:46

I have never understood the attraction of Ogust and prefer either showing feature or shortage. Definitely use 2 not 2NT as the ask over a 2 opening. The following structure works reasonably well.

Step 1: Two highest shortages, minimum
Step 2: Any shortage, maximum
Step 3: Lowest shortage, minimum
Step 4: No shortage, minimum
Step 5: No shortage, maximum

Due to my symmetric background I prefer to show shortages from high to low but obviously you can do it other ways. If you prefer, features rather than shortages can be done in a similar way.
0

#28 User is offline   shevek 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 707
  • Joined: 2006-September-29
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:whippets<br>anarchy<br>relay

Posted 2010-June-04, 04:59

Never liked Ogust much, mainly because I would never admit to a bad suit.
Prefer 2NT shortage ask in the relay style, with other responses non-forcing (exc 3). In particular, don't like 2 - 2 as relay. Too important natural, especially if you psyche a bit. Also don't want to give 4th player an easy double.

Relay players can apply relay principles here as well. One way is to split max & min and show shortage. This is one way:
2  2NT  GI+

3  any min
3   bal or HS (high shortage)
3  MS (so singleton)
3  LS ( singleton)
3N  AKQxxx

That seems as good as straight singleton ask.
Over the minimum:
2  2NT  GI+

3  3*
3  bal or HS
3  MS
3N  LS

Then split min bal & HS:
3  3*
3  3*

3N  bal
4  HS

In all these auctions, 2NT then 3 of opener's major is invitational.
Step or other major continues relay.

With the shortage located, I suppose responder can relay for strength on a 3-2-1 scale, starting at 4 for max, 3 for a min? Then DCB etc.
0

#29 User is offline   glen 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,636
  • Joined: 2003-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2010-June-04, 10:18

shevek, on Jun 4 2010, 06:59 AM, said:

... One way is to split max & min and show shortage. This is one way: [details above] ...

This is the best I've seen in this thread
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
0

#30 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,410
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, Canada

Posted 2010-June-04, 14:12

shevek, on Jun 4 2010, 04:59 AM, said:

Never liked Ogust much, mainly because I would never admit to a bad suit.
This, except s/bad/good/. But then again, I have APAD (Always Pass as Dealer) on my system card...
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#31 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,245
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2010-June-04, 14:39

Jlall, on Jun 2 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

Interesting Adam I have always felt that feature has helped me a lot in the 3N vs 4M decision, and ogust leaves me guessing where partners side value is.

It does seem that way...

But in practice, I've found that I'm not usually looking to bid 3NT on hands where partner's side value is my only stopper in some suit. One issue is that the 3NT is wrong-sided, so partner's king fairly often ends up not being a control after all.

What happens to me more often, is that I want to be in 3NT if partner's suit is really good, like say I have four aces and out in a flat hand. If partner holds KQJxxx of his suit and nothing else then 3NT is cold but making 4M will be a huge struggle. If partner holds QJTxxx of the suit and a smattering of side values, then making 3NT will be difficult (there is probably some suit where my ace is the only stopper and we will often have to lose a trick to establish partner's major) but it's not unlikely that we can establish ten tricks for 4M some way or another.

All these methods based around shortness ask seem good on paper, but in the partnerships where I play a shortness ask I have never used it, and in the partnerships where I don't I've never missed it. I think that slam hands opposite a weak two bid are awfully infrequent at the table, and many of those that do come up can be resolved by creating a cuebidding auction without the complexity of shortness asks and DCB.

I do play somewhat more structured responses to Ogust than many people do. My rules are:

(1) A good suit can be played for one loser opposite a small doubleton. At NV a roughly 50/50 shot at this is okay (i.e. I would rate KQTxxx or KJTxxx as a good suit) whereas at V it should be higher percentage (KQJxxx is a good suit as is AJT9xx, but the holdings above are not). This might seem opposite to people's ideas of "pushing for the Vul game" but the idea is that my minimum suit quality requirements for a vulnerable preempt are not far off the "good suit" requirements at NV so it doesn't make sense to use the same criteria.

(2) A good hand has maximum values. This is normally 9-10 hcp in my style of weak twos. It should include something outside the suit (since 9 hcp all in the suit AKQxxx would rebid 3NT). Of course, standard hand evaluation stuff comes into play, like KQJxxx of a suit and three stray jacks is a "bad hand" with a good suit, whereas KQJxxx of a suit and a side king is a "good hand" with a good suit.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#32 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2010-June-04, 15:01

bluecalm, on May 31 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

Sensible style weak twos; always 6cards.
What's your favorite system after it ?
I saw :

a)singleton ask, new suits forcing
b)transfer responses inv+ (with 2 non forcing)
c)ogust

etc etc.

What do you prefer and why ? I am switching to playing weak twos with most partners and I need to choose one as I was playing multi my whole life.

i like transfers lol
0

#33 User is offline   Jlall 

  • Follower of 655321
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,293
  • Joined: 2008-December-05
  • Interests:drinking, women, bridge...what else?

Posted 2010-June-04, 15:14

awm, on Jun 4 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

If partner holds KQJxxx of his suit and nothing else then 3NT is cold but making 4M will be a huge struggle.

When partner shows no feature, I play him for a good suit and not much else. I don't see the problem in 2S 2N 3S 3N on this hand type playing feature.

Quote

If partner holds QJTxxx of the suit and a smattering of side values, then making 3NT will be difficult (there is probably some suit where my ace is the only stopper and we will often have to lose a trick to establish partner's major) but it's not unlikely that we can establish ten tricks for 4M some way or another.


As I said, it depends on your preempting style. The more likely you are to preempt with none of the top honors in your suit, and no feature, the more likely you are to have problems playing feature. If I preempted with such a hand, I would undoubtedly be 6-4, maybe something like QJT9xx x QJTx xx. With this hand I would pull 3N after a 2N-3N sequence. If partner just wanted to play 3N he could bid 2S-3N, so this pull is obvious to me even though it might not always work.

Again I don't see much problem there. It seems like ogust is most useful if you are often bad/bad, since in feature partner won't know your hand and suit are both bad if you have no feature. If you don't frequently have bad/bad then ogust seems like a waste, and feature works well since partner can make an assumption that you have a good suit if you have no feature, or at least some kind of 6-4 or 6-5 that you will pull 3N with.

FWIW I was a lifetime ogust player until a couple of years ago, but I also used to preempt much more aggressively. Probably white/red first seat I should still play ogust. My experience with feature has been very positive.
0

#34 User is offline   glen 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,636
  • Joined: 2003-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, Canada
  • Interests:Military history, WW II wargames

Posted 2010-June-04, 16:17

2M-2NT;-?

3: shortness is most important feature. 3 asks where, replies as features below
3: no shortness/no feature or solid suit
--3M: pass unless solid suit
--3OM: asks which
3OM: feature in OM
3M: feature in s
3NT: feature in s and wedding plans
'I hit my peak at seven' Taylor Swift
0

#35 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2010-June-04, 16:22

After 2-2NT, I think that you can show seven hand-types without going past 3, like this:

3 = max / max / bad hand
3 = max / normal minimum
3 = scattered max, no side-suit thing
3 = concentrated max, no side-suit thing

After 3, there are two enquiries:
3 = defintely wants to bid game opposite , maybe opposite too
  3 = bad hand
  3 =
  3NT =
3 = to play game only opposite
  3 = or the bad hand
  3NT =

After 3, 3 asks.

The same approach can be used to distinguish suit-quality, or ranges with a given side-suit thing. The two essentials are that:
- In the 3 bid, one hand must be better in every way than one of the others. For example, you could have max clubs/max hearts/min hearts, but not max clubs/max hearts/max diamonds.
- In the 3 bid, one hand must be better in every way than the other.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#36 User is offline   zenko 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 2006-April-26

Posted 2010-June-06, 18:50

Weak twos are vastly overrated IMO, especially non-spade ones, except perhaps 1st seat favorable. Thankfully, these days the pendulum is swinging other way, away from Marty Bergen style, no doubt helped with success of Italian teams over the last few decades, who are all very disciplined weak two bidders.

Even more so, if you examine convention card of current top European pairs (and some American ones, Boyd-Robinson for example) you will find them littered with 9-12, 10-13 and similar ranges for level 2 openings.

I can go on in great length explaining the theoretical advantages of playing disciplined or even "semi-intermediate" weak twos, but I doubt I would convince anyone. Talking about this subject I find bridge players' minds curiously closed, I suspect many of them have some kind of ingrained disdain for this kind of "wussy" ideas, on the first glance the concept is just not mavericky enough I guess, bit like trying to explain the advantages of machine guns over sabres to some 19th century calvary officers.
0

#37 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2010-June-07, 01:01

just try bidding a few hands with 43 majors after an opponent's weak 2 or 2 opener...
0

#38 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,011
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2010-June-07, 01:47

the best way of winning an argument is to explain to everyone how unworthy your opponents are of hearing your reasoning. They will always believe you and defer to your superiority.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#39 User is offline   LoneMonad 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 2008-July-02

Posted 2010-July-05, 06:05

uncontested response to 2Major:
1st step = shortness ask
2nd step = feature ask
New suit = 17+hcp, good suit, forcing
4 = modified keycard
responses:
4 = 1keycard No Q(trump)
4 = 1keycard + Q(trump)
4 = 2keycard No Q(trump)
4NT = 2keycard + Q(trump)
5suit = 1keycard, Void in suit(Trump = )
5NT = 2keycard, undisclosed Void
Don Malone
it takes all of us
0

#40 User is offline   JmBrPotter 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 2009-September-02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Clio, South Carolina, USA
  • Interests:Bicycling, Chess, Computer Science, Go, Hiking, Learning, Military Simulation Games, Photography, Quality Improvement, Reading (SciFi, nonfiction), Statistics, Teaching, Two-Player Partial Information Games, Two-Player Total Information Games, oh! I almost forgot---Duplicate Contract Bridge playing and directing

Posted 2010-July-10, 13:42

Re: Response & rebid structure after a weak two opening bid

Partner and I use all four two-level suit openings as natural & weak. This creates response and rebid issues others do not face (e.g., space waste of an asking 2NT response to 1 ;)). We have devised the following structure:

Over 2-suit opening bids:
- 1-step (2 over 2 to 2NT over 2) is either . . .
. . . . :wub: feature ask
. . . . :unsure: Ogust
. . . . :blink: other by agreement (agree on one by partnership style)
- All raises are bar bids
- Simple new suits are natural, 1RF, & invitational
- 3NT is natural to play
- Jump shifts are game forcing fit raises
- 1-step above four of the opened suit is Keycard Kickback
- 1-step above five of the opened suit is Kickback Grand Slam Force
- Doubles of adverse overcalls are negative with 0-2 card support
- Redouble is STRONG with a splinter in the opened suit

We use the feature ask approach, but there is nothing wrong with Ogust for folks who like that better. Both approaches are playable.
:-)

Brian Potter

e-mail: ClioBridgeGuy >at< att >dot< net
URL: Bridge at the Village

Bridge is more than just a card game. It is a cerebral sport. Bridge teaches you logic, reasoning, quick thinking, patience, concentration, and partnership skills.
- Martina Navratilova
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users