[sceptic]

I can't remember the last time I played with someone that was willing to play ogust.

everyone seems to play weak twos with no specific agreements or is there a standard way of playing them, it just seems very hit and miss to me with mostpeople (pickups)

[badderzboy]

Hi Wayne,

I do as does Ron A & John C - rather than get into the relative merits of feature asking vs Ogust - I find Ogust much easier .


Steve

[mike777]

sceptic, on Sep 2 2005, 01:37 AM, said:

I can't remember the last time I played with someone that was willing to play ogust.

everyone seems to play weak twos with no specific agreements or is there a standard way of playing them, it just seems very hit and miss to me with mostpeople (pickups)

Again this may not be mainstream but:

If you open weak 2 in first or second seat with no outside a or k or open shapely 10 hcp at one level often then the need for Ogust goes down.

[Winstonm]

I stopped playing Ogust because I found it to be of dubious merit - in fact, nothing I saw seemed too well thought out when it came to responding to weak 2 bids. Therefore, I set out to see what I could do and came up with the idea of using a Losing Trick Count ask (At least I thought it was my idea as I hadn't seem anything on this concept) - and I was lucky enough to have Ron Klinger give me some input and ended up with a comprehensive system that will be published in Bridge World.

The basic problem I always had with Ogust is that it seemed geared to reaching 3N more than the most logical game contract of 4 of opener's major; however, for those who play a weak 2D, I see some merit in an Ogust type response as the most likely game contract now would be 3NT.

Maybe the reason you are finding few who play Ogust over majors is due to the possibility that it is going the way of Fishbein - proven over time to be of less value than other ideas?

Winston

[the hog]

So what do they play Wayne? Feature ask or ogust, it doesn't seem to matter that much, though Ogust works better opposite undisciplined weak 2s

[coyot]

Feature ask works fine for me. If your weak 2's are undisciplined, you only need to deny a feature even if you have it. Basically it works ALMOST the same way as Ogust. Ogust distinguishes minimum with good and bad suit (which FA hides into one bid), but the maximum and bad suit bid of Ogust is too ambiguous - FA allows for much better combined hand evaluation.

[sceptic]

I may have mentioned it before, I watched luis do a session on weak twos and he recommended a weak two ogust STYLE, which I liked a lot and seemed to make a lot of sense to me

0 - bad 11 hcp to open

unfortunately everyone I mention it to laughs at me or says it is ridiculous

so I am left with mainly pick ups p's saying weak twos and nothing else , no definition of what a weak two is nor the responses you can expect (maybe it is just to long winded to talk about for a few hands)

[1eyedjack]

By preference I normally play that bids other than 1st step in response to the weak 2 are transfers (skipping a suit, ie 2S-3C = tfr to H, to give opener a chance to indicate suitability without committing to game). Can wrong-side the contract, but the increased range of describable hand types overcomes that risk.

1st step respose to the weak 2 = relay, over which
Step 1 = no shortage or shortage in highest side suit
Step 2 = shortage in middle side suit
Step 3 = shortage in lowest side suit, minimum opener
Step 4 = shortage in lowest side suit, maximum opener.

After step 1, next step relay asks for clarification of presence or absence of shortage in highest side suit, zoom into min v max (and relay for min v max if lack of zoom). After step 2, next step relay asks for min v max

Only after that would a relay ask for suit quality, which relay would by then commit to game and is therefore likely to be a slam try (although could be a 3NT probe if low enough). With some partners I play a disciplined suit quality for the opener, which eliminates the need for subsequent enquiry at the expense of failing to open some hands that other pairs are preempting. And feature asks come low in the list of priorities.

I tend to find that this works a bit better than ogust.

[the hog]

Yeah well, I guess the solution is to get a regular pd. When I'm npt playing with caren we can have a game if you like.

[mike777]

sceptic, on Sep 2 2005, 03:36 AM, said:

I may have mentioned it before, I watched luis do a session on weak twos and he recommended a weak two ogust STYLE, which I liked a lot and seemed to make a lot of sense to me

0 - bad 11 hcp to open

unfortunately everyone I mention it to laughs at me or says it is ridiculous

so I am left with mainly pick ups p's saying weak twos and nothing else , no definition of what a weak two is nor the responses you can expect (maybe it is just to long winded to talk about for a few hands)

well with 99% of my pickup partners we never discuss anything so do not get discouraged. The rest is 2/1=100% game force, and not much else, weak 2 bids are never discussed.

It does just seem there are very few long term, well discussed partnerships out there, even though here in the forum it seems there are a million .

[the hog]

No there are not a million. Its just that those who want to play seriously tend to gravitate towards one partner. If you are lucky you get a world class player like my pd.

[Al_U_Card]

I have played 2NT feature ask, 3C shortness ask etc. but found Ogust to be better generally (I can usually tell where my pard's "good hand" side entry is from looking at my own hand) and when you end up in NT, the opps SHOULD lead the feature suit, to knock out your entry to the eventually established long suit.

[Al_U_Card]

btw, I play bh-bs bh-gs gh-bs and gh-gs but this may be referred to as reverse Ogust.

[Double !]

It is not you, Wayne.

BBO basic and adv both have "feature" as their default responses although I greatly prefer Ogust. The major problem with Ogust is that there are at least 3 different sets of rebids published somewhere or other (most 2 sets: the 3D & 3H rebids are reversed), and it is not enough, therefore, to simply agree to play Ogust. You need to determine which version of rebids you are playing. There is also the issue of whether or not people play a new suit response as forcing, invitational, or whatever. This is a lot to infer when you just sit down at a table, and barely have enough time to say "Hi all, 2/1 P?" (or SAYC, P?/ or Acol, P?) and then start playing. In addition, there seem to be a number of players out there who bid as though they don't wish to have any reigns hauled in, so to speak, who wish to bid what they want and when they want when it comes to weak 2 bids.
(I am curious about whether there are any regional tendencies when it comes to wk2 openings and response structures/ styles.)

BTW: I do not have access to "Pre-empts from A to Z". If someone wouldn't mind describing the recommended response structures from this book, such information would be greatly appreciated.

[han]

Wayne, you must have been playing with the wrong people. If I was playing with you and you told me that you really prefer oghust, I can't imagine playing anything else.

[kenberg]

Double !, on Sep 2 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

BTW: I do not have access to "Pre-empts from A to Z". If someone wouldn't mind describing the recommended response structures from this book, such information would be greatly appreciated.

A-Z recommend Ogust. BUT:

In A-Z Ogust (page 24):

3D= Maximum strength, poor suit

In BBB1 (Better Bidding with Bergen v1) (page 101):

3D=bad hand, good suit

This could (with me, does) have something to do with the reluctance to play Ogust in a pick-up partnership.

But you asked specifically about A-Z over 2M so here is a quickie (pp27-28):

2N asks for Ogust response. 3C asks for shortness (3N over 3C =club shortness).

New suits other than clubs over 2M are natural and forcing

Jump response in a new suit is Control asking (1st step=no control, 2nd step =second round, 3rd step=1st round)

Game bid over 2M is to play, Except 2S-4H which is control asking. If responder wants to play 4H after 2S opening he bids 3H and then 4H.



This seems to me to be perfectly reasonable as long as you and partner are on the same wavelength. Nothing works very well if partner has a different understaning. Duh.

The above responses presuppose a disciplined weak 2. If partner's weak 2M can be on Jxxxxx, knowing about second round cotrol of diamonds may not be the key to the hand.

Ken

[1eyedjack]

kenberg, on Sep 3 2005, 07:11 PM, said:

But you asked specifically about A-Z over 2M so here is a quickie (pp27-28):

2N asks for Ogust response. 3C asks for shortness

Problem with that is ...

I have difficulty constructing hands where the response to 3C shortage enquiry is not at least as useful as (if not more so than) the response to the 2N Ogust enquiry. Doubtless hands do exist, but there must be a huge overlap

[Clinch]

Double !, on Sep 2 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

BTW: I do not have access to "Pre-empts from A to Z".  If someone wouldn't mind describing the recommended response structures from this book, such information would be greatly appreciated.

Responses to 2♥ and 2♠:

- Single raise defensive, jump raises signoffs (weak or strong).
- 2NT Ogust
- Simple changes of suit except 3♣ natural and forcing for one round.
- 3♣ asks for singleton or void (3NT by opener shows short clubs). Opener is allowed to jump to game with a very good suit but no shortage.
- Jumps in new suits control-asking in that suit with step responses.
- Most games to play (except 4♥ over 2♠, which is control asking as above).
- 4NT Blakwood, 5NT GSF.

Responses to 2♦ are simpler, in that control asking bids are not used. 2♥ and 2♠ natural and forcing, all games to play.

Hidden in all that lot, 2NT was Ogust.

Peter.
New York, NY.

[jdeegan]

The_Hog, on Sep 2 2005, 03:25 AM, said:

... Ogust works better opposite undisciplined weak 2s

This is an excellent piece of advice. When you play the weak two bid, you must decide in advance whether to play it as a constructive bid (disciplined, almost a picture bid) or a disruptive bid (undisciplined, say 4-10 HCP and playing strength based on vulnerability).

With the disciplined style, the emphasis is reaching game or slam whenever possible - suit requirements are strict, and 2NT asking for outside strength makes sense. With the undiscipled style (which I greatly prefer, esp. at matchpoints) you should have an LOTT 'pure' hand (ie. no Q or J - late round tricks in the opponents suits), and almost always a six bagger so that partner can cooperate with my mild preempt and increase it with confidence. Our intent with the undisciplined weak two bid is merely to survive with an average when it's our hand, and Ogust is better for that task.

My experience is not that the undisciplined weak 2 bid will 'fix' the opponents all by itself very often, but it throws so much sand in their bidding gears as to average 60+% on such hands. Also, it is more fun.