How useful is Ogust? Coded 9/10's

[Badmonster]

Recently someone told me that Ogust was a huge addition to the bidding arsenal and I should learn it as soon as possible. I wanted to get some opinions.

 

I've had the same conversation about coded nines and tens. I'd like to hear some opinions and arguments for and against.

[Rossoneri]

Ogust: Depends on how you play your weak 2s. Most useful when the strength of your weak2s can very greatly (e.g. JT9xxx possible and AKQxxx possible) Ogust would allow your partner to determine how good your suit is. If your pre-empts are somewhat solid, more useful to free up 2NT for other gadgets like feature ask.

 

Not too sure about coded 10s and 9s, never played it before personally.

[Trinidad]

I happen to like Ogust. But then again, we have always had an aggressive style of weak twos and that is when Ogust can come in handy.

 

On the other hand, I think Ogust is overrated and not thought through completely. I like to be aggressive, but I will not bid on a bad hand and a bad suit. (I will open 2Sp on ♠QJTxxx and nothing else, but not on ♠QJxxxx, a king and a queen.) This means that obviously, you will have to adjust your responses to Ogust to your style of weak twos.

 

Summarizing: You can easily do without Ogust, but if you play it, make it fit your style of weak two's.

 

Rik

[pclayton]

Ogust is fine by an unpassed hand.

 

Coded 9-10's aren't getting the bad rap they once did, but many still won't play them because they give away too much information.

[han]

Oghust is so simple, asking this question is more work than just learning it. (edit: by which I don't mean that it was a bad question to ask)

 

I still dislike coded 9's and 10's and I'm still hearing a lot of bad rap.

[foo]

Recently someone told me that Ogust was a huge addition to the bidding arsenal and I should learn it as soon as possible. I wanted to get some opinions.

 

I've had the same conversation about coded nines and tens. I'd like to hear some opinions and arguments for and against.

Trinidad is correct that Ogust allows you to constructively handle a wider variety of hands than Feature does. In particular, Ogust allows a wider range of suit quality in the suit opened. Playing Feature, it is much more difficult for pd to know what to do when they have a good hand if your Weak Two's can contain a "bad suit".

 

 

My advice is do not play either "J Denies, T implies" or "Coded T and 9's" unless you are being paid by Declarer to do so...

[cherdano]

Ogust is worth it especially if you use the opportunity to discuss your weak two style with partner.

[hrothgar]

"It Depends".

 

Here's a somewhat more lengthy (and hopefully more useful) answer.

 

I think that its extremely useful to use a first step response to a weak 2M opening as an artificial asking bid. In the case of a 2♠ opening, the asking bid is 2NT. In the case of a 2♥ opening, the asking bid can be shifted to 2♠ (with 2NT used as a foring bid with 5+ Spades)

 

This asking bid can be used to get information about a number of different questions:

 

1. Some people use this as a range ask (show me a feature if you have a maximum hand)

 

2. Other folks eschew the range ask and prefer to simple ask whether or not partner has shortage

 

3. A large number of folks ask partner to clarify suit quality and range (OGUST)

 

I suspect but can prove that the utility of the different methods depends a lot on the nature of your weak 2 openings. Its entirely possible that a shortness ask is the most useful over a second seat preempt while OGUST shines more over relatively undisciplined first seat preempts.

[P_Marlowe]

Recently someone told me that Ogust was a huge addition to the bidding arsenal and I should learn it as soon as possible. I wanted to get some opinions.

 

I've had the same conversation about coded nines and tens. I'd like to hear some opinions and arguments for and against.

Oguts is ok, if you play wide ranging weak twos,

if your weak twos are regular based on a 5 card

suit, it makes a lot of sense to find out, if

the suit was a 5 suit or a 6 card suit, this is

possible with a modified version of Ogust.

 

Coded nines and tens: If a method provides a clear

picture for partner, it also gives quite often a clear

picture to the enemy, I would say it evens out, you

either like it, or you dont.

Additionally the problemtic cases are not that often,

usually you will end up leading another card.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

I cannot point at all to why, but I did not like "coded nines and tens" when I tried them years ago.

 

However, as a related concept to some degree, I really liked the advice I read from one of the Brock's about "power tens." I tried it with one partnership, and I felt good about the experience. I have no idea whether it helped or not, but I did have a fuzzy feeling.

 

The idea to power 10's is that the lead of a 10 is from a "power position." You will have a touching card (J10 or 109) plus a higher honor (AJ10, KJ10, or A/K/Q-109).

 

Without "power," you lead the Jack from J10 or the 9 from 109.

 

This may sound like "Jack or Nine denies, 10 implies," and hence not much different. But, something to consider if you like these types of leads.

 

Now, I do neither.

[mikeh]

Ogust: I have recently been playing a variant:

 

3♣: either I opened a 5 card suit, or Ihave 6 but a truly ugly hand: 3♦ asks

 

3♦: 6 card suit, nothing special, not completely ugly

 

3♥: I like my hand due to shape: good weak 2 with shape

 

3♠: I like my hand due to high card: nearly a 1-level opener

 

I have some concerns that this doesn't convey much specific, especially the 3♥, but it seems to work so far. The 3♣ gadget has proved very valuable.

 

 

As for coded 9/10s... please, I encourage everyone to play them. They aren't used enough... by my opponents. Nothing makes life easier than the lead of the J against 3N, when the Q is in dummy.... I have yet to lose an avoidable trick after that lead... and as declarer I truly appreciate the info given by the 9 and 10 as well. Please, please...try them... your opps will be as happy as I am :)

[SoTired]

coded 9 & 10's are like MUD: They look good on paper and they satisfy our craving for deterministic leads, but in practice, they give more critical info to declarer than partner.

[Stephen Tu]

coded 9 & 10's are like MUD: They look good on paper and they satisfy our craving for deterministic leads, but in practice, they give more critical info to declarer than partner.

 

Since when does MUD look good on paper? MUD to me is just unclear for everyone.

 

As for 9s/Ts, it's easy to construct examples where it removes declarer's guess. However, it's also easy to construct examples where it removes partner's guess. No one has ever really demonstrated to my satisfaction which of these situations is clearly more frequent. It all seems to be personal preference, not really careful statistical study or computer simulation.

 

Also there is a half-way approach suggested by Wirgen ("Scanian leads" in an old bridge world) that leads coded T/9 from some combinations but not others, feeling that some of these combos are more help for the defense while others are more help for declarer.

 

If you do play coded 9s/Ts, one thing you can do is psyche the lead of a jack or whatever if you think partner is unlikely to get the lead (opps have bid strongly to 3nt & you have the rest of the deck), so that you don't pass info to declarer if partner is unlikely to need it.

[neilkaz]

I prefer high card feature to Ogust if playing decent weak 2's and a modified Ogust if playing freewheeling weak 2's.

 

As for coded leads. I play them with a PD who really loves them and will do my best to convince her otherwise since I feel they help declarer at least as much.

 

Playing vs coded leads, I sometimes (my declarer play is superior to my mediocre defensive skills) darn near can have the whole hand figured out when I see the lead (especially if the opening leader had made a bid that seems to limit his HCP)!

 

Re: MUD..I have sometimes used those leads for years, but they do confuse PD's at times.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[Cascade]

Ogust: I have recently been playing a variant:

 

3♣: either I opened a 5 card suit, or Ihave 6 but a truly ugly hand: 3♦ asks

 

3♦: 6 card suit, nothing special, not completely ugly

 

3♥: I like my hand due to shape: good weak 2 with shape

 

3♠: I like my hand due to high card: nearly a 1-level opener

 

I have some concerns that this doesn't convey much specific, especially the 3♥, but it seems to work so far. The 3♣ gadget has proved very valuable.

Perhaps the advantage is that they do not convey much.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Ogust is fine for a first try at bidding over your own weak two bids.

 

I do not play 5-6 card weak two bids in 1st and 2nd seats. In 3rd seat, all bets are off. 5+ card suits and a much wider range of HCP.

 

I played a lot of Ogust in my early years of bridge. Later I started playing 2NT 'asking' for shortness which seems to get better results.

 

If you are inviting and partner has a 'fitting' shortness, you bid game. If you are inviting and partner has a 'misfitting shortness', you sign off. If 'balanced and max.' partner will drive to game. :)

 

Currently I like to play 2M-2NT=clubs, 3C=diamonds, 3D=hearts(inv. if 2H opened and 'showing' hearts if 2S opened. Partner normally accepts the transfer and you can now 'invite' by returning to his suit 'having already shown values' in the 'transfer' suit.

 

You are using an Ogust type style and exchange additional information because partner will know to place a higher value cards in a given suit 'that you have shown an interest in.'

 

A direct invite 2H-3D* or 2S-3H* shows general values and no concentration of values. Are you max. or min. is the question.

 

2M-3M 'raise' is a normal type 'blocking bid.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Guest Jlall]

You might as well show declarer your hand if you're going to play coded tens and 9s.

 

BTW unless you need to play something amazing at trick 1 or 2 you will almost always have the chance to signal whether you have led from an interior sequence or not. However, if declarer has the guess you won't signal either way and declarer will misguess. If you have to get it right at trick 1 or 2 you can often figure it out anyways, or what you need partner to have. You are very rarely on a pure guess, and even if you are you will get it right half the time. Actually, I can honestly say I've never had a hand come up on defense where I needed coded 10s and 9s to work out the hand. I can recall 2 hands that I've made that I would have gone down in because i had AQx opp xxx and they led the jack playing this stupid convention, and that is obviously in a much much smaller sample space.

[pclayton]

Im pretty sure I saw one pair playing J denies in the USBF R16 but Im hard pressed to think of whom.

 

One area where they are useful is in middle game leading through declarer.

[awm]

The thing is, if you don't play coded 9s and Ts, you only experience it when it's used against you.

 

This means you'll notice when the convention tells you something that helps you play the hand. You are much less likely to notice when the convention helps your opponents to defend accurately -- after all, they might've guessed to defend accurately anyway (just as you might've guessed the right declarer play anyway), and you're usually not that deep into the defenders' thought processes.

 

As someone who often does play coded 9s and Ts, I have noticed multiple occasions when I was not playing the convention and was forced to guess what to do on an early trick, only to get it wrong. This is surprising because, as mentioned, I do play coded 9s and Ts with a substantial number of partners and still have had enough "wow I wish we were playing coded leads" instances to notice.

 

On the other hand, I've never noticed a time when playing Rusinow helped me (except when declarer doesn't look at our CC and thinks we play standard leads), or when not playing Rusinow caused a problem. I can never remember sitting at the table thinking "wow I wish we played Rusinow, then I would really know what to do in this situation." And I can think of a several times when Rusinow leads caused a problem because of a lead from honor-doubleton. Then again, plenty of players swear by Rusinow too, including some of those who are so dead-set against coded 9s and Ts.

 

To each their own I guess, but I often find it amusing that a lot of people are so eager to denigrate the methods of others when it seems pretty likely that they've never really tried those methods themselves.

[Guest Jlall]

The thing is, if you don't play coded 9s and Ts, you only experience it when it's used against you.

no

 

Actually, I can honestly say I've never had a hand come up on defense where I needed coded 10s and 9s to work out the hand. This means you'll notice when the convention tells you something that helps you play the hand.

 

It is not hard to tell if a hand where you got it wrong because you didnt know whether your partner had an interior sequence or not came up believe it or not. You don't have to play coded 10s and 9s to see this.

[awm]

It is not hard to tell if a hand where you got it wrong because you didnt know whether your partner had an interior sequence or not came up believe it or not. You don't have to play coded 10s and 9s to see this.

While this seems to make sense, most people's first reaction when they get a guess like this wrong isn't to think about playing a different lead convention.

 

You've probably played a lot more bridge hands than I have, and certainly more in the last five years or so. Yet I can think of at least two distinct instances off the top of my head where I was forced to guess whether partner had lead from a sequence early in the hand and got it wrong because of not playing coded leads, despite playing coded leads in more than half my boards over this time period. It's hard for me to believe you've actually never had this situation come up.

[Codo]

I never understood the argument: coded 9 and tens give away the suit to declarer.

Of course these signals make it easier for partner and declarer to read the suit.

 

If you don´t want to give any information to declarer: Don´t signal at all. Lead random cards.

 

If you wish to deliver information to partner, you must life with the risk, that declarer will read your signals too. It is your choice how accurate your signals should be. Coded 9s and tens deliver more information then a simple top of a sequence lead. This helps pd and declarer to read the suit and you must decide what is better for your side.

 

Justins example of AQx opps xxx was a nice example of the downside.

But I remember some hands where I hold something like Axx as defender in the suit my pd lead. No values in this suit in dummy. Switch or continue? In these cases coded 10 and 9s helped a lot, espacially when there is the risk of a running suit in dummy and you need to cash out as soon as possible.

[han]

Not all Signalling situations are equal Codo. There are situations where you can recognize that partner needs your signal, then you certainly give it. There are alos situation where you know that partner will usually want a signal, for example, partner leads the ace or king at trick one. Then, you also agree to give some signal. In the experience of most posters here, coded tens and nines are more often useful to declarer than to partner.

[skjaeran]

Coded 10s and 9s is similar to some part of Vinje leads which I used nearly 20 years ago. And also in some aspects comparable to Journalist leads.

 

My first encounter with Journalist leads was in the Nordic Junior Teams in 1987, when we played a danish team. I was declarer, and in two 3NTs where I got a J (denies) and a ten (implies) leads I could more or less claim both contracts (only overtrick(s) were at stake) after the opening lead. At the other table both contracts failed after standard leads, when the danish declarer guessed wrong at trick one.

 

That being said, I've used Journalist leads myself in regular partnerships later, with some success. My clear impression is that they give away too much information (that declarer is the long run winner). But there's no doubt that on some hands the defending side has the upper hand.

 

Like Mike, I'm happy if opps use leads of this kind.

[Codo]

Hannie,

 

I absolutely agree with you- you should deliver more informations when they are useful for pd then for declarer. And signaling situations are not equal.

 

Unluckily in most hands it is far from clear whom we will help more with our leads and signals.

We are very seldom in a position where we can judge right in the beginning of a hand that we better don´t signal at all as we will surely help declarer more then our partner. There are hands where it is pretty clear, but in the majority of hands you cannot be sure.

 

I believe that most posters dislike coded 9s and 10s, because they remember all the good times they had when their opps used them.

But when does this happen? If you have just one honour no matter if this is in dummy or hand, you don´t care about the lead.

If you hold AK KQ or QJ, you don´t care about it. In all these cases the lead does not help you at all, but it may had helped the defence.

 

But whenever you hold two non touching honours, like AQ you as a declarer are very lucky about a lead with coded 9 and 10s. At least as long as the queen is in dummy. Else you have no problem anyway.

In this case these leads will often help you as declarer.

Whenever you hold just one honour or KQ, they help the defenders or are neutral.

But in these cases, you - as the declarer- don´t care much, you take your trick(s) one way or another. So I believe, that it is more a matter of which hands you remember then of how good or bad this lead is?

 

My own experience is not as bad as yours or Justins. Especially together with Obvious shift, I found that we took more tricks in defence and we took them much easier then with a bread and butter signaling method. This is just a feeling too.

 

And maybe I simply forgot these hands where declarer "guessed" right and just remembered those where it worked?