How useful is Ogust? Coded 9/10's

[Al_U_Card]

Ogust, is preferable not only for the inherent ability to contain way more info than the feature/shortness ask but also for what it does not contain. You ask for a feature, pard shows a diamond feature. You bid 3NT and the lead is.....A DIAMOND! Why? To knock out your entry to dummy because you are too short in his suit to get there unless he has an outside entry.

 

btw, in my Ogust sequence, the good hand = contains a feature :o

 

also I like the alphabetical version for memory savings

 

bh bs

bh gs

gh bs

gh gs

 

hand before suit and bad before good.

[kenrexford]

Oh -- memory tools for Ogust. I always get confused when playing regular Ogust with people, because my parents taught me their version, which had 3♦ as a good hand bad suit because you wore your diamond on your hand, and 3♥ good suit bad hand because your heart is under your suit.

[jillybean]

also I like the alphabetical version for memory savings

 

bh bs

bh gs

gh bs

gh gs

 

gmta, well almost :(

 

I use the same memory aid but in a different order:

 

3♣ bad hand : bad suit

3♦ good hand: bad suit

3♥ bad hand: good suit

3♠ good hand : good suit

3nt suit = AKQxxx

 

What is standard?

 

jb

[Free]

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice... So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

[keylime]

I used to play coded 9/10's religiously until I started giving up bad results (ironically while I lived in Nanaimo). These days, only if I'm playing through declarer into a J/Q in dummy will I play them. Otherwise, no dice.

 

Ogust I think is ok - there's a few variations of it but I think it works well. I had to remember them this way (along lines of Orwell):

 

dug, bg, gb, gg, dpg (double ungood, bad-good, good-bad, good-good, double plus good)

[foo]

also I like the alphabetical version for memory savings

 

bh bs

bh gs

gh bs

gh gs

 

gmta, well almost :(

 

I use the same memory aid but in a different order:

 

3♣ bad hand : bad suit

3♦ good hand: bad suit

3♥ bad hand: good suit

3♠ good hand : good suit

3nt suit = AKQxxx

 

What is standard?

 

jb

Al has given the variation I see most often in play; and you have listed the piece he's missing of 3N= AKQxxx (many don't remember that part of Ogust. Well done.)

 

The "bad" hands are going to be more frequent than the "good" hands, so it makes sense to have them be the 2 lowest of the responses.

[jillybean]

Always good to be on the same wavelength as your partner, we hope.

 

Bridge Guys lists these variants and more

 

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...gustSystem.html

[cherdano]

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.

I am very surprised by your experience with Rusinow. Han and I played them for a while, and there certainly were a lot of situations where they were helpful: you can play A for attitude and K for count (or unblock at NT) without giving up anything (of course you can do this in standard too but then you lose the sometimes needed attitude signal when leading from KQx(x) ). I found having this choice when leading from AK quite often very helpful to avoid trick-2-guesses.

[kenrexford]

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice... So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

Yeah -- I never understood that rationale. When I bid Ogust after a 2♦ opening, seeking 3NT, I am usually more interested in suit quality than in the overall "strength" of the hand.

[mikeh]

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.

The difficulty with this argument is that I, for one, have played coded 9's and 10's... and I learned to dislike them because they gave away too much information to good declarers.... so your assumption that those who dislike them because they have not played them is wrong.... at least in one case B)

[foo]

The difficulty with this argument is that I, for one, have played coded 9's and 10's... and I learned to dislike them because they gave away too much information to good declarers.... so your assumption that those who dislike them because they have not played them is wrong.... at least in one case B)

...and for me as well. B)

[han]

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice...  So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

Yeah -- I never understood that rationale. When I bid Ogust after a 2♦ opening, seeking 3NT, I am usually more interested in suit quality than in the overall "strength" of the hand.

I think that's (more than) reasonable, but my understanding is also that what Free says is "standard".

[kenrexford]

std is bad hand twice, good hand twice...  So you can invite after 2♦ openings and end up in 3♦ after partner shows a bad hand.

Yeah -- I never understood that rationale. When I bid Ogust after a 2♦ opening, seeking 3NT, I am usually more interested in suit quality than in the overall "strength" of the hand.

I think that's (more than) reasonable, but my understanding is also that what Free says is "standard".

For what it's worth, I'm not even playing Ogust anymore with one partner after 2♦ openings. Rather, 2NT is only "semi-forcing," with Opener allowed to bid:

 

Pass = forcing (just kidding--shows acceptance of that alternative)

3♣ = Fair 2♦ opening -- can check on 5-3 major fits if 3M would be 4-card

3♦ = must-play-here

3M = max, 4-card here (or 3-card if not that sick)

3NT = player suit

[pclayton]

Re: Ogust

 

When I was taught Ogust 3D meant a good hand. The memory aid was diamonds goes on your hand.

 

About 7 years ago I learned that 3H showed the good hand. The memory aid is now 'hearts in hand'.

 

I dont know if the standard changed, or this is just a regional (or continental) difference.

 

By the way, I have the agreement with my pards that if we choose to open a weak 2 with 5, that the suit quality is what dictates a 'good' suit, and not the length.

[jdonn]

I don't understand either of those memory aids. I have always learned 3♦ is bad hand good suit and 3♥ is good hand bad suit. The memory aid is good hands bid more than bad hands! Yeah that's a tough one lol.

[matmat]

I don't understand either of those memory aids. I have always learned 3♦ is bad hand good suit and 3♥ is good hand bad suit. The memory aid is good hands bid more than bad hands! Yeah that's a tough one lol.

is there a corollary that says that good players bid more than bad players? :)

[foo]

I don't understand either of those memory aids. I have always learned 3♦ is bad hand good suit and 3♥ is good hand bad suit. The memory aid is good hands bid more than bad hands! Yeah that's a tough one lol.

is there a corollary that says that good players bid more than bad players? :)

Perhaps not =more=, but =sooner and more accurately=. Especially with hands whose playing value is not reasonably represented by HCP.

[jillybean]

=sigh=

[Guest Jlall]

=sigh=

hahahaha, ok that was good.

[Echognome]

Funny. I learned the memory aid of L-SPA (and given that I was living in a town called Leamington Spa at the time, it was easy to remember):

 

L - Lousy

S - Suit

P - Points

A - All

 

Piece of cake.

[blackshoe]

I don't understand either of those memory aids. I have always learned 3♦ is bad hand good suit and 3♥ is good hand bad suit. The memory aid is good hands bid more than bad hands! Yeah that's a tough one lol.

I like the memory aid I learned from one of Ron Klinger's books - The Modern Losing Trick Count, I think: 12123. A good suit, in his methods, has 2 of the top 3 honors; a bad suit has only one. So 12123 equates to bad hand, bad suit; bad hand, good suit; good hand, bad suit; good hand, good suit; solid suit.

 

Works for me. :)

[awm]

I've found ogust to be really useful. In the modern game a preempt can be a pretty lousy suit, and finding this out is usually a high priority for partner. If your preempts are always "two of the top three" then ogust is probably a waste of time.

 

I remember the responses because they're based on frequency. A good suit should be more likely than a good hand, since preempts are "supposed" to have decent suits and not a lot of outside cards. So the lower bid (3♦) shows the good suit and the higher bid (3♥) shows the good hand.

 

My preferred definition for a good suit is that it "has play for one loser or less opposite a small doubleton." How much play is play depends on the colors; for example KJ9xxx might qualify as a good suit at white as there is a chance at one loser even though it's less than 50%, whereas at red the minimum would be something like AQTxxx (needs one of two cards onside and a reasonable break). In any case this definition is nice because partner knows that with ace or king and one he can run the suit (at red) or at least has a decent shot at running the suit (white), and also knows that with two or three small we should have decent odds at only one trump loser.

[Double !]

OGUST is the response structure that I usually play, however I have found response structures that involve transfers to be interesting. There is also a response structure called "Feature-Ogust" where 2NT asks for feature (whatever constitutes a feature) and 3♣ asks for hand and suit quality.

 

I guess I'm in the minority but, until I learn a better method, I strongly prefer coded 9s & 10's, even with J-denies. For me, the gain that the information that such leads and failure to make such leads give me have out-weighed any information that they have given declarer. I also find that, over time, it has helped reduce brain-drain, especially when I am in the process of falling asleep at the table (a frequent occurrence). However, when it all comes out in the wash, nothing is still more important than counting, paying attention to partner's cards, and keeping track of what cards have been played.

 

DHL

[Al_U_Card]

the version I supplied was not what I learned as standard. I just like it better.

[Double !]

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.

Justin,

I recall one hand that I played against you and, i think, David G where one of you led the jack of a suit, partner got in, and returned the suit, permitting me to make the contract. I remember your comment to your partner after the hand was over, saying something to the effect that "we gotta code this s**t". I thought that you meant using coded 9/T/J leads. Maybe I was wrong, perhaps you had some other "s**t" coding in mind. Just the same, that might have been the only contract that I made against you guys during the set and, as usual, you crushed us.

 

DHL