[jillybean]

I'm sure I'd lose a few memory cells each time I sat down with a new partner who wanted to play their version of Ogust.
I've now been introduced to another range ask after 2M, originating somewhere in Aussie.

2M: 2NT

3M minimum
3♣ medium
3♦ maximum
3NT AKQxxx


Sorry Harold.

[shyams]

Whenever I played with a new partner (online or, decades ago, in-person) who wanted to play Ogust, I'd immediately rattle off my mnemonic "1-2-1-2-3"

I considered it the simplest & best way to ensure a pickup partner does not forget. To clarify: 3C (min with 1 honour in my major), 3D (min with 2), 3H (max with 1), 3S (max with 2), 3NT (max with all three)

I don't recall having a disaster; not sure if pickup partners then insisted on their own flavours. Maybe it was the rhythmic sound of hearing "one, two, one two three" that did the trick.

[jillybean]

That's another version

[pescetom]

Alert: "asks about my weak two opening, 1-2-1-2-3"

[DavidKok]

There are many other options. A simple one I played for a long time is shortage ask:

• 3X below 3M: short.
  
• 3M: minimum, no shortage in lower ranking suits than the major.
  
• 3♠ (on 2♥-2NT only): short spades, maximum.
  
• 3NT: maximum, no shortage.

In other words: bid your shortage, but do not bypass 3M with a minimum.

Personally I am more interested in much more difficult alternatives to Ogust. Ogust wastes so much valuable bidding space, and doesn't cater to my preemptive style at all. For these rare constructive auctions I want much more effective gadgets.

[pescetom]

I play an alternative simple enough for intermediates which caters to my wide ranging style (but never 5 cards) and possible 4 card major.
Can describe here if anyone is in the same boat.

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2026-October-28, 08:56, said:

I'm sure I'd lose a few memory cells each time I sat down with a new partner who wanted to play their version of Ogust.
I've now been introduced to another range ask after 2M, originating somewhere in Aussie.

2M: 2NT

3M minimum
3♣ medium
3♦ maximum
3NT AKQxxx


Sorry Harold.

Not sure this is simpler as you have three strength levels to evaluate rather than two, and I've seen some struggle with two.

I use an extended (includes 65s) version Gavin Woolpert introduced-2 strengths only.
3N (63)22
3M min.
3oM (64)xx
3D (6x)(4x)
3C (62)(32) or 6M(331)