2NT ask in response to a weak 2

[TMorris]

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?

 

If it makes a difference I play a weak NT and a weak 2 range of 5-9.

[ArtK78]

I play a "normal" range weak 2 when vulnerable and a very light weak 2 bid nonvulnerable.

 

Over the "normal" weak 2 I have agreed to play that 2NT asks for a feature if opener is not minimum.

 

Over the nonvulnerable weak 2 I have agreed to play bids that show range and length of the suit. I believe that is important opposite an undisciplined weak 2 bid.

[TMorris]

It may be that "normal" where you are and where I am are different. To put things in context what do you call "normal"?

 

Could you give an idea also as to why you use the different options for the different ranges?

 

Many thanks

[ggwhiz]

I've been experimenting with the responses to include the more shapely weak 2's along with the range as follows.

 

3♣ - generic bad hand

3♦ - medium strength with shortness somewhere then 3♥ asks for it. (3♠ asks if it was a weak 2♥)

3♥ - medium strength no shortness

3♠ - max with shortness then 3nt asks

3nt - ??? Suggestions?

 

So far the shortness (or not) has steered us well into or out of some light 3nt contracts. I'm still waiting for the shortness thing to get us to a slam as we usually just place the contract with the next bid.

[ArtK78]

By "normal" weak two I mean 5-11 HCP, typically with a good suit (KQTxxx would be typical).

 

The responses that I have agreed to use to a nonvulnerable undisciplined weak two bid (range 3-9 HCP) are:

 

IN RESPONSE TO 2♦ - 2NT:

 

3♣ - 5 cards, minimum range (3-6 HCP).

3♦ - 6+ cards, minimum range.

3♥ - 5 cards, maximum range (7-9 HCP).

3♠ - 6+ cards, maximum range.

 

IN RESPONSE TO 2 OF A MAJOR - 2NT:

 

3♣ - 5 cards, minimum range.

3♦ - 5 cards, maximum range.

3♥ - 6+ cards, minimum range.

3♠ - 6+ cards, maximum range.

 

A weak 2 bid on a 7 card suit is unusual, but is permitted.

[wank]

basically the wider the range for your weak 2, in terms of HCP and suit length, the more important ogust is.

 

as i play a disciplined 5-9 nv 6-10 v and never have a 5 card suit, ogust is pretty useless for me. I play feature over 2D aimed at 3NT.

 

over 2M i play shortages - best way to get to tight HCP games and slams imo.

[aguahombre]

 

Could you give an idea also as to why you use the different options for the different ranges?

The colors determine the discipline of the weak-two itself. After a 1st or 2nd seat nv weak two, we need something sort out just how much the bid sucks, if partner wants to know. The degrees are:

 

---joke

---reasonable, but minimum...some scattered stuff

---traditional suit strength at any colors

---Really nice one...close to a 1-bid.

 

Or whatever terminology you want to use.

 

At unfavorable, the 2-bid itself should be disciplined as to suit quality, so we are content with feature.

[Statto]

3nt - ??? Suggestions?

Solid 6-card suit headed by AKQ.

[steve2005]

Solid 6-card suit headed by AKQ.

How bout 6 really good(not solid)

like AKJ

KQJ

AQJ

[aguahombre]

Or, a Straight flush to the Jack? I would add the ten to statto's AKQ recommendation.

 

Maybe KQJ would be a fine surprise holding to show if one's norm is having honors everywhere but in the suit bid.

[nigel_k]

The suit quality aspect of Ogust just doesn't seem that useful to me. You can show feature or shortness instead, but I prefer shortness, e.g.

 

First step: minimum with a shortage anywhere

Second step: maximum with a shortage anywhere

Third step: minimum no shortage

Fourth step: maximum no shortage

 

Or you can just show the shortness regardless of strength and partner may then bid three of the major which you pass with minimum and bid on with maximum. But obviously this won't work if you 'psyche' 2NT often.

 

You may want to use 2♠ not 2NT as the asking bid after a 2♥ opening.

 

If the weak two may be a five card suit, i would definitely recommend the first step as any hand with a five card suit. This leaves space to investigate strain if needed. Start showing shortage/range with the second step.

[gnasher]

You can show features (or shortages) and split the range:

2♠-2NT

- 3♣ = club feature, or maximum with heart feature

- 3♦ = diamond feature

- 3♥ = minimum with heart feature

- 3♠ = minimum without a feature

- 3NT = maximum without a feature

 

After 2♠-2NT;3♣:

- 3♦ = Asking, definitely wants to play game opposite a maximum with club feature. Opener bids in steps: 3♥ = hearts, 3♠ = min clubs, 3NT = max clubs

- 3♥ = Asking, only interested opposite heart feature. Opener bids 3♠ with a club feature and 3NT with a heart feature.

 

After 2♠-2NT;3♦:

- 3♥ = range ask.

 

 

After a 2♥ opening, you have to play 2♠ as the enquiry in order to fit everything in.

[Statto]

I would add the ten to statto's AKQ recommendation.

I don't see how this helps. It comes up rare enough as it is. The main point is to find 3NT when responder has 3 tricks in hand and stops in every suit. If responder has a smallish doubleton, by the time they've discovered the suit breaks 4-1 onside it's too late anyway.

 

Maybe KQJ would be a fine surprise holding to show if one's norm is having honors everywhere but in the suit bid.

Hehe B-)

[blackshoe]

2NT asks for hand and suit quality (Ogust responses).

3♣ asks for side shortness.

Other new suits are forcing.

Jumps in new suits are Control Asking Bids (CABs) in the suit bid.

[Statto]

I play a "normal" range weak 2 when vulnerable and a very light weak 2 bid nonvulnerable.

 

Over the "normal" weak 2 I have agreed to play that 2NT asks for a feature if opener is not minimum.

 

Over the nonvulnerable weak 2 I have agreed to play bids that show range and length of the suit. I believe that is important opposite an undisciplined weak 2 bid.

That seems a reasonable approach, but personally I can't imagine normally opening a weak 2 with a 5-card suit in 1st/2nd seat. So I would suggest Ogust nonvul (you can include all 5 card suits in the definition of "poor suit", as well as those without 2 of the top 3 honours, 3 of the top 5, or whatever criteria you want to choose) and feature-ask vul.

[Cthulhu D]

I was playing with a modified Ogust as suggested by Jeff Goldsmith (google his site, he calls this September I think).

 

After 2S - 2NT;

 

3C: 8 losers, good hand 3D asking relay, 3H bad, 3S good

3D: 8 losers bad hand

3H: 7 or less losers

3S: 9+ losers.

 

 

You can obviously swap H/S if you want to play the same structure over 2H openers as well. It's not perfect but helps if you regularly open off shape weak 2s that may have something unusal. I've stopped playing it (moved to 2C = weak 2D or strong, 2D = multi, 2H = ekrens and 2S = 4 or 5 spades + a minor).

[kenrexford]

I have been thinking about this for a bit, and I have been unsatisfied with what is currently mainstream. Shocker.

 

But, in response specifically to a 2♠ opening, I have thought that:

 

1. Useful space principle and experience tells me that 3♠ by Opener should be the weak hand. Get there fast.

 

2. 3♣ should be some sort of hand where 3♦ can ask for more info. Two possibilities are shortness (3♥ for club, 3♠ for diamond, 3NT for heart, for example) or for a feature. Probably feature.

 

3. 3♦ should probably be some sort of re-invite hand, perhaps good suit. 3♥ then asks for "good hand or not?" A 3NT reply to this could be solid-suit. (E.g., 2♠-P-2NT-P-; 3♦-P-3♥-P-; 3NT as solid suit. Might also be semi-solid (AKJ?).

 

4. 3♥ then becomes available for the other ask-able, probably shortness, with 4♣ asking perhaps.

 

5. A direct 3NT, then, is either a solid suit or, if solid suits are handled through 3♦, then perhaps 3NT could show the maxi 5-piece?

[Siegmund]

I've used a modified Ogust reorganized along the lines of Ken's suggestion.

 

We defined "good vs bad suit" as 2 vs 1 of the top 3, and "good vs bad hand" as outside stopper or no outside stopper.

 

3C = 1 of the top 3, outside stopper. 3D by responder asks where: 3H=H, 3S=D,3NT=C.

3D = 2 of the top 3, outside stopper. Not room for a full ask, but room to use 3H as an "is it here?" type of call - or whatever type of reask you find most useful.

3H = 2 of the top 3, no outside stopper

3S = 1 of the top 3, no outside stopper

3NT = AKQ

 

Over 2H, the 3H and 3S bids are reversed of course.

 

Somewhat unfortunately, the whole stopper-ask business really would be more useful over 2D, and then 2N is just too high. But I've never tried using 2H artificial over 2D. Maybe I should.

[Zelandakh]

You can show features (or shortages) and split the range:

2♠-2NT

- 3♣ = club feature, or maximum with heart feature

- 3♦ = diamond feature

- 3♥ = minimum with heart feature

- 3♠ = minimum without a feature

- 3NT = maximum without a feature

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.

[TMorris]

Many thanks for all the replies. Lots of food for thought.

[gnasher]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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