kenrexford Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Your partner opens 2♥. You bid 2NT, asking partner to further describe his hand. He bids 3NT. What does this mean? Does the meaning of 3NT change if you are playing "feature," "Ogust," or "Jogust?" Also, do you have a special meaning or use for this bid that you like but do not view as standard? [if this question sounds too simple, you may be surprised.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 AKQJxx of hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think AKQxxx will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 I think AKQxxx will do. What she said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Agree with Helene. What the heck is "Jogust"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Agree with Helene. What the heck is "Jogust"? Jodified Ogust, of course. Everybody knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 I only know Sjogust... Sjoert Brink's Ogust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 AKQxxx will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 If you play feature 3N just shows a max with no feature (Qx KQTxxx Qxx Jx). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 This AKQ(J/x)xx meaning was what I assumed. Partner held ♠AK10xx ♥xxx ♦AKx ♣AK and leapt to 6♥, claiming that I could not have AKQ(J/x)x because this showed either AKJ10xx or AQJ10xx. He claimed that with AKQxxx and out (xx-AKQxxx-xxx-xx), you would open 1♥. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 shoot him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 shoot himy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 (1) It means what you and your partner have agreed it to mean.(2) Jxx AKQJxx x T9x is not a weak two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 (1) It means what you and your partner have agreed it to mean.(2) Jxx AKQJxx x T9x is not a weak two. A fair point, but the heavy 2-bid causes no problems here if item #1 had agreement. Not every single bid is discussed, and sometimes you have to rely on assumptions from standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillHiggin Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 This AKQ(J/x)xx meaning was what I assumed. Partner held ♠AK10xx ♥xxx ♦AKx ♣AK and leapt to 6♥, claiming that I could not have AKQ(J/x)x because this showed either AKJ10xx or AQJ10xx. He claimed that with AKQxxx and out (xx-AKQxxx-xxx-xx), you would open 1♥. I know of a person who offers free lessons in which he preaches (to B/I students) that any hand with AKQ in one suit is an opening bid. I do not intend to imply that his teachings are wrong (I do not intend to judge his teaching at all). But he does run these classes quite often (on multiple sites - not just BBO, it is possible that he only uses different sites in a serial manner), and there are a significant number of "graduates" from his classes here (most of whom we would likely consider to still be B/I) who tend to believe that what they have heard from him is of gospel quality. Certainly, this comment would be quite consistent with these lessons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 It shows AKQxxx like a number of posters above have mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted March 13, 2008 Report Share Posted March 13, 2008 What Justin and Helene said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted March 14, 2008 Report Share Posted March 14, 2008 We play that it shows any maximum with only five hearts. But our weak twos are quite wide ranging and fairly often only five. If I was to sit down with a random partner I would expect it showed AKQxxx of hearts. I would expect those same random partners to show a feature with Justin's hand or jump to 4♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexlogan Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 This AKQ(J/x)xx meaning was what I assumed. Partner held ♠AK10xx ♥xxx ♦AKx ♣AK and leapt to 6♥, claiming that I could not have AKQ(J/x)x because this showed either AKJ10xx or AQJ10xx. He claimed that with AKQxxx and out (xx-AKQxxx-xxx-xx), you would open 1♥. ? Personally, I don't think it works very well to open a 1 bid with no outside strength. When you open, partner assumes you have honors which may combine with his high cards. I've always viewed a weak two as intermediate between a 3 bid (very high offense to defense ratio) and a one bid (good defense, relatively low ODR.) It's partly constructive and partly obstructive. I think two bids are most effective at around 8-10 hcp. At that strength, sometimes neither opp can scrape up a bid. The weaker you are, the more likely they can act, and the two bid just doesn't accomplish much. For me, AKQxxx is an excellent weak two, and I have little interest in playing such a wide range that this would be viewed as "too strong". Even when I've played systems with light opening bids, I prefer to open such a hand with the descriptive two bid. Bottom line is that there is no bridge agreement so sacred that a pickup partner can't violate it based on some pet system he's developed or been taught or misconstrued. 3NT to show AKQxxx playing either features or Ogust is textbook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.