[32519]

 PhilKing, on 2013-July-06, 09:06, said:

1. The method chosen should not take you past 3NT unless you have extreme distribution, so jumping to 4m with a max and a singleton is about the worst possible.

2. The method should not give away information prematurely, since partner may just want to invite without tipping off your entire shape.

3. Subsequent auctions need to differentiate between game and slam exploration accurately.

To start with, a range of 5-11 is nuts. You might do OK in a local club game where noone can defend against weak twos, but it is a big leak. It is popular now to split the range - a roughly 8-11 range opens 2M with weaker hands going through a trash multi 2♦. Over an "8-11" 2♠, it can go as follows:

2NT = game relay, spade fit and game try or looking for best strain without fit
3♣ = slam relay. Guarantees at least Qx♠. Continuations are not included here, but we just tend to relay for shortage then either cue or bid RKCB.

Differentiating responders hand-types clears up potential ambiguities later in the auction. After 2♠-2NT:

3♣ = nothing much to say. Then:
.......3♦ = further relay (3♥=6322 3♠/NT/4♣ = stepped shortages)
.......3♥ = nat GF
.......3♠ = nat inv
3♦ = 4♦, decent side suit, else just bid 3♣
3♥ = 4♥, decent side suit, else just bid 3♣
3♠ = 4♣, decent side suit, else just bid 3♣
3NT = 4♣, absolute max, decent side suit, else just bid 3♣
4♣ = 6♠, 5♣, with extreme shape the range is 7-9
etc

The point is, the only hands that don't bid 3♣ are the unusual ones. This way, we rarely give up irrelevant information, but we can still ask for shortage if we want, but only by forcing to game - the cost of telling them partner's shape all the time on invitational hands is just too high. Sure, the system is not perfect - we can't find out about heart shortage without blowing past 3NT, but that's the price of temporary concealment (I could fit it in if I wanted).

Your method here (and probably Adam's as well) swops partner (the weaker hand) conveying his shape and hand strength for a whole slew of artificial bids all which allow the opponents to make lead directing doubles. The weak 2 opener already said much about the hand. Your method seems to have as a key-focus to play in 3NT when you have no fit for partner’s suit and need to find out if he is min or max before bidding 3NT. If that is your concern you can still keep it simple by adjusting fromageGB's method as follows:
2♠-2NT (with 2NT as the shortage/range ask)
With a minimum nothing changes to what has already been posted.
With a maximum you can change the responses as follows:
2♠-2NT
3NT = Max, may or may not have shortage. Now if you wanted to play in ♠ all along you can bid 4♣ asking for shortness. Once you do this you have obviously committed to game and show slam interest, a hand that can bail out in 5♠ if necessary. Responses are simple -
4♦/♥ = shortness
4♠ = no shortness
4NT = ♣ shortness
How you continue exploring for the slam from here is up to you.

I am starting to sound like an old gramophone player that got stuck on the same track but I am of the opinion that this idea of fromageGB is streets better than your proposal.

[32519]

Keep the bidding simple, that's what the average player is looking for. Complicated sequences are for experts. If you adopt the suggestion above you can refine it even further as follows:
Over the 4♣ shortness ask, slam interest bid -
1. Any 4-level response (excluding the agreed upon suit) shows a singleton
2. Any 5-level response shows a void. With this extra information, getting to six should be easy.

[kael chi]

I like OGUST best.

[Vampyr]

 PhilKing, on 2013-July-06, 09:06, said:

1. The method chosen should not take you past 3NT unless you have extreme distribution, so jumping to 4m with a max and a singleton is about the worst possible.

I think it is valuable also to retain a "tactical" 2NT response, especially if the opening bid is 2♥.

[aguahombre]

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-07, 11:22, said:

I think it is valuable also to retain a "tactical" 2NT response, especially if the opening bid is 2♥.

Don't remember the last time the 2NT ploy was successful. It is just too well known plus allowing the double of 2NT to expose it (takeout of hearts). Bidding Spades has worked to create confusion even if they suspect the possibility.

[nige1]

# Disciplined weak2 (At least 3 HCP in the suit)
HCPmin= 5 HCPmax = 9 LenMin = 6 LenMax = 6 HCPsuit = 3
LenS = spades (north) LenH = hearts (north) LenD = diamonds (north)
weak2= hcp (north) >= HCPmin and hcp (north) <= HCPmax and
shape (north, any 64xx + any 63xx - xxx6) and
((LenS >= LenMin and LenS <= LenMax and hcp (north, spades) >= HCPsuit) or 
(LenH >= LenMin and LenH <= LenMax and hcp (north, hearts) >= HCPsuit) or 
(LenD >= LenMin and LenD <= LenMax and hcp (north, diamonds) >= HCPsuit))
shortage = shape (north, any 0xxx + any 1xxx)
action average weak2, average weak2 and shortage

About 3% of your hands are disciplined weak 2s.
About 2% of your hands are disciplined weak 2s with a shortage.

[32519]

This thread is starting to take a new twist: Defending against a weak two and/or psyching a good hand by responder. So far we have this -

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-07, 11:22, said:

I think it is valuable also to retain a "tactical" 2NT response, especially if the opening bid is 2♥.

 aguahombre, on 2013-July-07, 11:57, said:

Don't remember the last time the 2NT ploy was successful. It is just too well known plus allowing the double of 2NT to expose it (takeout of hearts). Bidding Spades has worked to create confusion even if they suspect the possibility.

What do others have to add?

[Cthulhu D]

 32519, on 2013-July-06, 23:18, said:

I can virtually guarantee you that fromageGB's method will skyrocket in popularity once enough people get to hear about it. It's simple, straightforward and requires very little memory load. The bulk of bridge players are club players who neither have the time nor the inclination to spend large amounts of time creating/memorising complicated bidding structures. If you are a high end player competing at the top level, stick to whatever complicated method and partner play. But this scheme will be a hit amongst the lower end players.

Why do you triple post so much? Can you just use the edit button? It's on the bottom right of your post and allows you to edit a post to add thoughts you had missed previously into the post by editing it.

It's just poor form to triple post.

[32519]

 Cthulhu D, on 2013-July-08, 01:25, said:

Why do you triple post so much? Can you just use the edit button? It's on the bottom right of your post and allows you to edit a post to add thoughts you had missed previously into the post by editing it.

It's just poor form to triple post.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your approach. Few who follow a thread go back to what has previously been said. Instead all they do is read whatever has been added from the previous point they have already read. Editing and adding to an older post will result in them missing whatever has been added to the thread.

[jdeegan]

The old time thinking on this subject is that:

1. undisciplined weak twos - use Ogust. Your main object is to preempt the opponents' bidding and just to survive if it is your hand.

2. disciplined weak twos - show feature. Your main object is constructive bidding.

Personally, I prefer #1.

[blackshoe]

Interesting. Anderson and Zenkel (Preempts from A to Z) recommend disciplined preempts in first and second seat. They also recommend a response structure that includes 2NT (Ogust), 3♣ (artificial shortage ask), new suits forcing, and jumps in new suit are CABs (except, iirc, 4♥ over 2♠, which is to play). The book was published in 1993, which was twenty years ago. Maybe that's not "old time" enough.

[BillHiggin]

 32519, on 2013-July-04, 01:49, said:

I don't believe Shortage Ask is playable. The probability of being dealt a 6-card suit and 5-11 HCP is 2.97%. Multiply that by 3 for ♦, ♥ and ♠ you get 8.91%. The probability of being dealt a 6-card suit and 5-11 HCP which includes a singleton or void is 0.77%. Multiply that by 3 and you get 2.31% leaving a difference of 6.6%. With no singleton or void, opener is forced to repeat the suit opened. Responder now has no idea of the suit/hand quality. Is it bad (5-8 HCP), or is it good (9-11 HCP)?

Something seems wrong with the calculations. Singletons in hands with a 6 card suit do not seem as rare as these numbers suggest. The point range specification makes it more difficult to compute, but the relative numbers ought to be proportional over all hands with a 6 card suit. There is only one shape (6322) which has a 6card suit and no singleton or void. There are a total of 35,830,574,208 possible 6332 hands. Hands with a 6 card suit and a singleton or void and no more than 4 cards in a side suit include 6331 (21,896,462,016 hands), 6421 (29,858,811,840 hands) and 6430 (8,421,716,160 hands). So, restricting the longes side suit to 4 or less still makes the hands with shortness more common than the hands with no shortness. All hands with longer side suits include a singleton or void so the ration of 2.2 : 0.77 is definitely wrong!

[Siegmund]

With many partners I've played Ogust, and with one, we played 2NT Ogust and 3C shortness ask, as recommended by A&Z. The shortness ask came up rarely and I don't remember it ever influencing our result, good or bad, when it did.

But this past weekend, I was playing at the Great Falls Regional, and a hand came up where I was really glad my partner had asked to play features:

♠Ax
♥KQ
♦Qx
♣AKQJTxx

Partner opens a weak 2H. If you are playing features, you ask, and if partner shows a diamond feature, you can confidently move on to a slam. At IMPs 6C is probably safest; at MPs you'd be pretty confident 6H or 6NT will work, and conceivably ask for aces and bid 7 if partner has both red aces (though you do need 3-2 hearts or the HJ, plus no first-round ruff, for that to work.)
If you are Playing Ogust, you still won't know what to do when partner shows a good hand.

It darn near made me a believer in features on the spot.

(Now, if only my partner trusted me not to open 2H in first seat on a ten-high suit like her husband did for years. She called bidding slam a "Hail Mary gamble", not believing she was guaranteed six an honor in hearts.)

[blackshoe]

There's more to A&Z's methods than just Ogust and shortness ask. With your hand, 4♦ would be a CAB. After the response to that, you'll not only know if partner has a feature in diamonds, you'll know which one. BTW, in A&Z's methods, opener will have the ♥AJ as well. And if opener has no diamond control, you stop in 4♥.

[Siegmund]

That partner and I actually did play 4-level CABs -- but we modified them to ask for queens, too, so with that partner I'd have heard 4S, not 4H, if partner had xx in diamonds. (Yes, playing all of the methods in A&Z, the slam is biddable; and with that partner, the 5-level is probably safe almost all the time But playing with all of my current Ogust partners, the agreement is just Ogust and new suits forcing, and I'd be up a creek. I suppose responding 3C and seeing if partner volunteers 3D is the best I can do.)

[mike777]

 32519, on 2013-July-02, 23:15, said:

Which method is best to play over a weak two opening?
1. Pros of each?
2. Cons of each?
3. Or is there a better method?

fwiw I was taught that responder shows feature rather than asks.

that means the rest is an ask for shortness.

the general rule I was taught is we bid things we don't have in steps

but we bid things we do have directly


2h=2s=you show shortness what you don't have...
2s=2nt=ditto

but 2h=2nt shows stuff or 2s=3c shows stuff.

----------------


OTOH in a strong club system I love ogust......but that is far from a natural system