[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-March-06, 03:07, said:

Or you can just make 3♣ any minimum with a feature and 3♦ no feature. ie
2♠ - 2NT (feature)
========
3♣ = min with feature (then 3♦ asks with rebids 3♥=♥/3♠=♦/3NT=♣)
3♦ = no feature (then 3♥ asks, 3♠ min, 3NT max)
3♥ = max with heart feature
3♠ = max with diamond feature
3NT = max with club feature

In fact any response structure works that includes 3 hand types in 3♣ and 2 in 3♦ so long as you are careful with which hands have to be shown with 3NT. It is just a matter of deciding which hand types you might want to hide after a 3m response. For this purpose I think the negative responses (minimum or no feature) are best suited). Obviously you could substitute "shortage" for "feature" here if desired although in that case the immediate 3NT response really needs to be the "max without shortage" hand. Therefore

2♠ - 2NT (shortage)
========
3♣ = min without diamond shortage (then 3♦ asks with rebids 3♥=♥/3♠=♣/3NT=none)
3♦ = diamond shortage (then 3♥ asks, 3♠ min, 3NT max)
3♥ = max with heart shortage
3♠ = max with club shortage
3NT = max with no shortage

Obviously you could use this second structure for feature too by simply replacing the word shortage by the word feature throughout. In that case you show the diamond feature when sometimes you did not need to but in return are not committed to game opposite a club feature.

A problem with these schemes is that they commit you to game opposite some maxima. That's OK if you're trying to decide which gamer to play, but not if you're trying to decide whether to play game. My suggestion had that defect too, but only when it was a maximum without a feature, ie a solidish suit, where game is likely to be good anyway.

[Zelandakh]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-06, 07:09, said:

A problem with these schemes is that they commit you to game opposite some maxima. That's OK if you're trying to decide which gamer to play, but not if you're trying to decide whether to play game. My suggestion had that defect too, but only when it was a maximum without a feature, ie a solidish suit, where game is likely to be good anyway.

Read the second structure again Andy. I made the same point in the final sentence of my post in comparing scheme 1 with scheme 2.

[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-March-06, 07:19, said:

Read the second structure again Andy. I made the same point in the final sentence of my post in comparing scheme 1 with scheme 2.

In your second scheme, you seem to end up in 3NT when opener has a minimum with no shortage, and opener had interest opposite some shortage.

[Zelandakh]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-06, 08:39, said:

In your second scheme, you seem to end up in 3NT when opener has a minimum with no shortage, and opener had interest opposite some shortage.

Yeah, there does seem to be an advantage to having 2 hands of the same type but different strengths and a second hand type with maximum on the 3♣ response. It is possible to add a 3♥ ask over 3♣ if desired but when there are 3 different hand types this does not solve the problem as elegantly as your structure.

[gnasher]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-March-06, 09:16, said:

Yeah, there does seem to be an advantage to having 2 hands of the same type but different strengths and a second hand type with maximum on the 3♣ response. It is possible to add a 3♥ ask over 3♣ if desired but when there are 3 different hand types this does not solve the problem as elegantly as your structure.

In the three-way 3♣ bid, you have to have one hand-type that will always be considered worse than one of the others.

If the hands are A, B and C, and C > B:
3♦ = to play game opposite C, and possibly others, with replies:
- 3♥ = A
- 3♠ = B
- 3NT = C
3♥ = to play game only opposite A, with replies:
- 3♠ = B or C
- 3NT = A

So you could, for example, play it as one of:
  Good suit good hand
  Bad suit bad hand
  Bad suit good hand

[barmar]

 TMorris, on 2012-March-05, 08:57, said:

In response to a weak 2 I currently play Ogust. I see people playing 2NT as - asks for a feature if you are not a minimum. I am trying to find out if there is a clear consensus as to which is better and why. I can see the advantages of both but am not convinced as yet that I should change. Does anyone have any views?

IMHO, the main advantage of feature is that it's simple, which is why it's often taught to beginners.

[TMorris]

 barmar, on 2012-March-06, 09:44, said:

IMHO, the main advantage of feature is that it's simple, which is why it's often taught to beginners.

Interesting. As far as I know in the UK Ogust in the most common method so probably the one taught to beginners. This thread seems to suggest that some form of feature or shortage ask is best. What do you think is best?

[aguahombre]

 TMorris, on 2012-March-06, 10:45, said:

Interesting. As far as I know in the UK Ogust in the most common method so probably the one taught to beginners. This thread seems to suggest that some form of feature or shortage ask is best. What do you think is best?

You asked Barmar the question, so I apologize for the intervention; but....

Barmar is speaking from a non-UK point of view, and I (also) am.

Over here, weak two's are originally taught with suit quality and hand strength in mind. The Ogust asking bids focus on suit quality and hand strength...a bit redundant. However undisciplined weak twos are more likely to need Ogust type asking responses.

That doesn't mean I think UK players are taught undisciplined style from the outset. I don't know that. What I do know is that somewhere along the line a lot of players everywhere decided that the only hand within the point range which should NOT open with 2M is one which looks something like KQJXXX X XXX XXX (or add a king in a minor).

[gnasher]

 TMorris, on 2012-March-06, 10:45, said:

Interesting. As far as I know in the UK Ogust in the most common method so probably the one taught to beginners. This thread seems to suggest that some form of feature or shortage ask is best. What do you think is best?

I agree with what Wank said (not his octogenarian style, but his analysis) - if your weak twos are narrowly defined in terms of strength and suit quality, you should play a feature-ask over 2♦ and a shortage ask over 2M. With a wider range or strength and suit-quality, you need a range ask

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-06, 11:11, said:

You asked Barmar the question, so I apologize for the intervention; but....

It's a group discussion, I don't think the question was specifically targeted at me just because it happened to be in response to my post.

Quote

Barmar is speaking from a non-UK point of view, and I (also) am.

True.

Quote

Over here, weak two's are originally taught with suit quality and hand strength in mind. The Ogust asking bids focus on suit quality and hand strength...a bit redundant. However undisciplined weak twos are more likely to need Ogust type asking responses.

Right. As players gain experience, they also tend to learn more aggressive styles, and Ogust caters to liberal preempting.

Whenever I play with someone who doesn't want to use Ogust, they almost always say to open disciplined weak 2's.

[kenrexford]

Another idea (specific to 2♠ -- I believe generalizing across both majors is a bad idea):

2NT in response to 2♠ leaves enough space to show features via 3♣/3♥ easily, if you want to:

3♣ = feature in a minor; 3♦ asks; 3M flags the minor feature
3♥ = feature in hearts

You can then have a repeat of the major show a bust (2M-P-2NT-P-3M).

That way keeps you at or below 3♠, and a 3♦ response is still unused. From an "Ogust" prespective, though, the above seem to cover "bad hand bad suit" (rebid the suit) and "good hand bad suit" (show the feature that makes the "good suit"). From an Ogust perspective, then, you still need "good hand good suit (which is often an opening bid anyway) and good suit bad hand. These can be handled by way of 3♦ as "good suit," with 3♥ trying back -- good hand or not?

On top of this is (1) direct 3NT, (2) 3♣ and then 3NT after the feature ask, and (3) 3♦ and then 3NT after the strength ask. Perhaps a direct 3NT could show a max and a stiff, with 4♣ asking. 3♦ as "good suit" could then be followed by 3NT as "solid suit." 3♣ as a minor feature followed by 3NT after the ask could be both minor controls (e.g., ♠AJ10xxx ♥xx ♦Kx ♣Qxx?)



Again, trying to make the same thing available as a response structure to a 2♥ opening seems too difficult and too restraining on the 2♠ responding, unless you use 2♠ as the ask. If 2♠ would be natural and forcing, using a Kaplan Inversion might make sense here, with 2NT showing spades and 2♠ identical to the above (but everything bumped down a level). That would actually add options for heart hands, though, as you would then have an extra level below 3NT. It might get a tad tricky as to shortness calls, but that can be unwound.

[Statto]

 kenrexford, on 2012-March-06, 12:41, said:

Again, trying to make the same thing available as a response structure to a 2♥ opening seems too difficult and too restraining on the 2♠ responding, unless you use 2♠ as the ask. If 2♠ would be natural and forcing, using a Kaplan Inversion might make sense here, with 2NT showing spades and 2♠ identical to the above (but everything bumped down a level).

Quite a few pairs use 2♥ as the asking bid after 2♦, so this seems to be the logical conclusion

[barmar]

In some of my partnerships, we play Step Ogust: the first suit above opener is Ogust, with the next four steps being the normal Ogust responses. This leaves 2NT available as feature ask, or something else if you prefer.

Although now I'm thinking that it would be better to reverse these. When someone taught me Step Ogust, I think the idea was to ensure that most responses don't bypass 3 of opener's suit. But even over 2♦, the first response above 3♦ shows a good hand, and it seems unlikely that responder would have a hand that can only stand to go above 3♦ when opener has a good/good response. On the other hand, if you're looking for a feature, they might want a specific one before bypassing the 3 level.

[bluecalm]

My intuition is out five things which we would like to be able to show:
a)range
b)shortness
c)degree of support in other major
d)suit quality
e)feature

The most important are a) b) d) in that order.
I am yet to see the point of playing "feature" or a hand when it won imps but some pretty good players recommend it so I stay open minded on this one

[Statto]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-06, 11:11, said:

What I do know is that somewhere along the line a lot of players everywhere decided that the only hand within the point range which should NOT open with 2M is one which looks something like KQJXXX X XXX XXX (or add a king in a minor).

I hope this is just more sarcasm

[FrancesHinden]

No-one has yet (I think) mentioned the alternative approach which is for responder to show, rather than ask. In one partnership we play transfers, and I know we aren't the only people who do this because it's been independently suggested on BBF more than once.

2♠ -

2NT = clubs. Opener must complete.
3♣ = diamonds. Opener must complete.
3♦ = hearts. Opener must complete.
3♥ = balanced high card limit raise, Opener can choose what to bid.
3♠ = pre-emptive raise
3NT = to play
4♣ = keycard ask
4♦ = fit bid
4♥ = to play

The idea of the transfers is that responder can transfer to his suit and then bid 3♠ to show a raise with a 'long suit trial bid' in the suit shown, and opener evaluates based on that information.
Of course, the big advantage is that responder can show his own suit(s) - can sign off, or can show a 2-suiter. This is more useful playing an undisciplined style of weak two.

[Zelandakh]

What would 2♠ - 2NT; 3♣ - 3NT show in this style Frances? I am wondering if this is needed for something or whether it could be used as a surrogate feature ask.

[FrancesHinden]

You can play one of the transfer-to-a-minor-then-3NT auctions as choice of games (so denying you had the minor all along), and the other as a feature ask if you wanted, true. We simply play both of them as choice of games, but showing length in the suit bid i.e. 2S-3C-3D-3NT is choice of 4S and 3NT but with diamond length/strength opposite.

[Zelandakh]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-08, 04:55, said:

You can play one of the transfer-to-a-minor-then-3NT auctions as choice of games (so denying you had the minor all along), and the other as a feature ask if you wanted, true. We simply play both of them as choice of games, but showing length in the suit bid i.e. 2S-3C-3D-3NT is choice of 4S and 3NT but with diamond length/strength opposite.

I was thinking of
2♠ - 2NT; 3♣ - 3NT = asks Opener to pass 3NT only with a club feature
2♠ - 3♣; 3♦ - 3NT = asks Opener to pass 3NT only with a diamond feature
2♠ - 3♦; 3♥ - 3NT = asks Opener to pass 3NT only with a heart feature
2♠ - 3♥; 3♠ - 3NT = cog

but am unfamiliar enough with the methods not to know if this is feasible.

[FrancesHinden]

Oh I see. Yes that might work, it makes more sense to show doubt about one suit, than to show doubt about two.

but you can't really play 2S-3H-3S-3NT as cog. Well, you can, but not if opener has already bid 4S over 3H.