2NT ask in response to a weak 2

[barmar]

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]

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]

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.... :D

 

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]

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]

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

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.

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

True.

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]

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]

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 B-)

[Finch]

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.

[Finch]

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]

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.

[Finch]

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.

[Zelandakh]

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.

 

Well, 3♥ is then either a good raise or a choice of game hand. If Opener wants to goto game opposite an invitational raise but prefers 3NT then they have to bid it. Responder would then have to take it out if they were never interested in 3NT. As with the 3NT rebid after the other transfers, if 3NT from Opener over 3♥ is too important to use in this way then the whole thing falls apart.

[32519]

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.

 

There is a heck of a lot of responses to this thread with very little actually addressing the question in the OP. The OP wants to know which is better and why?

1. OGUST, or

2. Feature Showing

 

The OP correctly states that both have their merits. The question not adequately answered yet is, “which is better?”

 

Your weak 2 range barely cuts the grade for using either of the 2 asking methods above. Many play a weak 2 in the 5-11 HCP range. A minimum response shows 5-8 HCP and a maximum response show 9-11 HCP. When partner makes the 2NT asking bid, he is showing around 15 HCP and a fit with the suit opened. More helpful input here would be this, “what is regarded as a fit?” Is 2-card support enough, or do the experts recommend 3-card support?

 

Partners request is simple: If you have 9-11 opposite his 15 HCP, game is on. If you are minimum, a 3-level signoff is required. With a minimum, you simply return to 3 of the weak 2 suit when playing “Feature Showing.”

 

So to answer what you actually asked, here is my take on the 2 options available:

OGUST

1. Ogust has this advantage: It does not give information away to the opponents as to where your other HCP are located if you are max (9-11 HCP). This can be both positive and negative (see Feature Showing below).

FEATURE SHOWING

2. Feature Showing has this disadvantage: If you have a max and bid a side suit King, LHO has a cue-bid double demanding his partner lead the suit through you should his partner get the lead at any stage. The doubler is advertising the AQ sitting behind your King.

3. But the double of your side suit King can also be advantageous. Your partner has been alerted to a bad layout in the suit and 2 sure losers. Seeing a poor fit with the rest of his hand, he can signoff in 3 of the weak 2 suit.

4. The advantage of a Feature Showing bid is obvious: Partner can decide whether the feature you have shown fits in with the rest of his hand. It assists partner to signoff in 3 or to bid game.

 

Which is better?

In the end it will come down to personal choice. My personal choice is Feature Showing because of point 4 above.

[Statto]

There is a heck of a lot of responses to this thread with very little actually addressing the question in the OP. The OP wants to know which is better and why?

...

Which is better?

In the end it will come down to personal choice. My personal choice is Feature Showing because of point 4 above.

Most of the posts addressed the question. It's not a matter of personal choice, but of style, that being the style of your opening weak 2 bids, which may depend a lot on vulnerability...

[fromageGB]

Strength range (ie weak/strong) AND feature/shortage are both important, and as the suggestions show, you can combine them. However, maybe if you have to choose between feature or shortage (singleton or void) then it is more useful to show a shortage. In a weak hand there is never going to be a feature with significant strength, and responder if slam seeking can always use a specific asking bid to see if there is an ace or king in a particular suit, before going above game. Conversely, in a hand with a long suit there is quite often a shortage, and knowledge of it can make a significant impact on a game or slam decision. It could be a 30 point pack. So shortage is more useful.

 

If you have a weak 2 that may be 5 or 6 cards, then it is more important to show which of those than it is to show a shortage. Ideally you want to show (a) 5 or 6 (b) weak or strong © shortage or not. That is 8 options, and to identify the shortage suit it is 16 options. Naturally you can't do everything lower than game ...

 

However, if you accept that responder will not make the 2NT asking bid over 2S unless he is going to be in game opposite a strong 6, then it is possible to safely identify (a) 5 or 6, and (b) weak or strong, and © identified shortage when it is a 6 card suit. By "safely", I mean stop at the 3 level if one of these is the wrong one. You can do this with the first 4 step replies, and still keep a 3NT response as AKQxxx.

 

So show both strength and shortage.

[blackshoe]

Over 2M:

 

New suit: natural, forcing (except 3♣)

2NT: Asks for hand strength and suit quality (i.e., Ogust responses)

3♣: asks for a side shortage

jump in a new suit: Control Asking Bid (CAB) in that suit

jumps to game in a new suit: to play (except that 4♥ over 2♠ is a CAB).

 

See Andersen and Zenkel, Preempts From A to Z.

[fromageGB]

Over 2M: ...

I don't see what this gives you that

2NT(or maybe 2M+1) = asks about hand strength and quality AS WELL AS showing a shortage

3 any (including clubs) = natural forcing

doesn't.

After finding about a shortage/strength/etc., you can then bid an asking bid in a particular suit. Do all three, not just one.

After a natural forcing bid you can even bid game, too. Even in hearts.

 

Simplicity it gives you, but at a cost.

[blackshoe]

<shrug> Everything has a cost. :P

[mr1303]

Just a quick question, how often does new suit natural and forcing come up usefully?

 

The last time I used it, I held:

 

AQ10xxx

Qx

AKJxx

void

 

after partner opened 3C, vulnerable against not. I tried 3S (natural and forcing) which caught a raise to a no-play game. Partner had AQJxxxx in her club suit as well as a small doubleton spade.

 

Natural and encouraging but not forcing seems a lot more useful than natural and forcing to me.

[aguahombre]

Being able to correct the strain after CHO has opened 3m has not proved very useful; natural and forcing has worked well on a few occasions.

 

Natural and forcing is used by us with more strength or more "outs" than the example above.

[gnasher]

I don't see what this gives you that

2NT(or maybe 2M+1) = asks about hand strength and quality AS WELL AS showing a shortage

3 any (including clubs) = natural forcing

doesn't.

It gives you a way to reach the right contract with less information leakage. On most hands where you're considering game opposite a weak two, you don't need much information.