jerdonald Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 BBO forum, Playing Ogust our partnership agreement is a bad hand is < 9 points and a bad suit doesn't contain 3 of the 5 honors. The bidding goes: 2H P 2NT P 3C Showing a bad hand and a bad suit. North alerts and west asks for an explanation. Does it have to be as specific as my definition of our agreement? Jerry D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Tu Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Yes. The spirit of the game is full disclosure of agreements. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Playing Ogust our partnership agreement is a bad hand is < 9 points Does this mean that you open weak twos with more than 9 points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Not only does it have to be as specific as the definition given but it needs to be even more specific if you have additional information that you have noticed from your partner's trends beyond what the explicit agreement says. For example, if you have experience that partner would only preempt vulnerable with a band hand and bad suit when holding a side shortage, you should disclose this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdonald Posted November 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 BBO forum, Our point range for weak 2's is 5-10. This is fairly standard in the US(2/1).Jerry D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Don't assume that 99% of your opponents are complying with the laws when they limit their disclosure to "bad hand, bad suit", the reality being that their understanding is more explicitly defined. That is not a reason to follow their example. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 This should be easy. Don't use the words good or bad at all. Just tell them what the bid shows. 9 or ten HCP & 3 of 5 honors in the suit; 9 or ten HCP & less than 3 honors in the suit; 5-8 HCP and 3/5; 5-8 points & less than 3 tops in the suit. If you cannot disclose the agreement that easily, don't have the agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 If you cannot disclose the agreement that easily, don't have the agreement.I agree in this example, but sometimes if you give the full detail "will have this except when this it will be that, or if this then that, but on this it could be that if the other" it confuses the hell out of some people. In a club setting it may be better to say "most usually this, but there are some exceptions" and let them ask a follow-up if they are interested. I don't think complex agreements per se should be discouraged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 This should be easy. Don't use the words good or bad at all. Just tell them what the bid shows. 9 or ten HCP & 3 of 5 honors in the suit; 9 or ten HCP & less than 3 honors in the suit; 5-8 HCP and 3/5; 5-8 points & less than 3 tops in the suit. If you cannot disclose the agreement that easily, don't have the agreement. Except for many it's more qualitative than that. Some 7's are stellar and some 9's suck. 8's can fall into either category. If partner bid 3C I'd say that the suit is worse than 2/3 and he's on the lower half of his range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Some people walrus their Ogust responses. I don't. I will, however, give them a dead minimum/reasonable maximum for that seat and vul, and let them decide where the good/bad boundary would lie. Oh, one side I do have an agreement on with my regular partners: a good suit is "traditional disciplined": 2/top3 or 3/top 5 (not QJT). Especially because at favourable, JTxxxx is more than a minimum suit! So of course, I disclose that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts