[gurgistan]

Hi guys,

I have been away (playing checkers lol) for a while but today I re-entered the bridge fray.

I made a lots of IMPs by opening 2♥ with a six card heart suit without any points in it.

The situation was perfect for such a bid.

So I realized I need to be playing Ogust Convention in conjunction with my weak twos. I need the precision it gives.

According to http://www.bridgeguy...gustSystem.html, Ogust originally had 3♦ showing good hand, bad suit and 3♥ showing bad hand, good suit. They also suggest that some partnerships reverse this. The reverse makes sense to me: bidding higher with more points.

So if a randon unknown partner's card says Ogust, what are they likely to be playing? The original Ogust 3D/3H or the 'reverse' 3D/3H? Which method is the norm?

Many thanks any and all appropriate replies.

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, there is no norm. Pick one.

[mtvesuvius]

I think the reverse in the U.S. not sure though

[karlson]

I think standard is 3♦=good suit/bad hand (reverse). The way I remember it is that a friend pointed out that the original way makes more sense, since opposite a weak 2♦ you are more likely to want to bid 3N opposite a good suit. Then I remember that his way is the opposite of standard.

[Phil]

3D showing a good hand hasn't been in vogue for awhile. Remember 'hearts in hand'.

[barmar]

In the US I think most play it as 3♦ showing bad hand, good suit. The way I remember it is that you bid more if you have more.

[paulg]

I would not like to guess which method is standard, but the mantra I am told by the one partner who forces me to play this is '12123' ... intended to represent the expected number of honours in the suit.

[barmar]

I've played with plenty of pick-up partners over the years. Many don't play Ogust at all, but of the ones that do I don't think I've ever run into any that played 2♦=good hand, bad suit.

[blackshoe]

paulg, on 2011-January-29, 15:38, said:

I would not like to guess which method is standard, but the mantra I am told by the one partner who forces me to play this is '12123' ... intended to represent the expected number of honours in the suit.

That's part of Ron Klinger's memory device for this. The other part is "minors are minimum".

Anderson and Zenkel (Preempts From A to Z, 1996) first describe the "old" way, then mention that "some experts" do it the other way, but didn't seem to think it makes much difference, as long as partners are on the same page.

[Free]

If nothing is specified then I consider min-min-max-max.

I believe this is a better treatment after a 2♦ opening, where one wants to play 3♦ opposite any minimum hand. So you might as well use the same treatment over all weak two's...

[mhe]

I play the less popular version---3D=bad suit, max hcp. The idea is exactly the same: min-min-max-max, but the difference is the definition of "min"/"max", i.e. if you consider a poor suit stronger hand or a good suit stronger hand.
Unless there is a use to the freed up 3H auction, the difference is only logical/mnemonical.

[Rossoneri]

Coventry is near Leamington Spa, and I was told to remember it:

3♣ - Lousy suit and points
3♦ - good Suit
3♥ - good Points
3♠ - All

Which forms the abbreviation L.SPA.

I've not forgotten the responses since!

[NickToll]

Playing 3♦ as good hand / bad suit has a technical advantage: it allows you to introduce hearts in 2♠-2NT;3♦-3♥ as natural and forcing, knowing that opener's spades are bad.

[NickToll]

Playing 3♦ as good hand / bad suit has a technical advantage: it allows you to introduce hearts in 2♠-2NT;3♦-3♥ as natural and forcing, knowing that opener's spades are bad.

[peachy]

I thought up the line with hand first, suit second was standard. Heh, what do I know...
3C = BHBS
3D = BHGS
3H = GHBS
3S = GHGS
3NT = solid suit

There is also a modified Ogust, which works well if your weak two style is very undisciplined, where 3C response covers all fivecarders and 3D then asks further.

Whichever methods you decide upon, remember to agree what to do with various hands if they compete over 2NT.