[mangurian]

I am asking specifically about non-vul weak twos. They have such a wide range.
Assuming Ogust is not to be used, what else is available?
Thanks in advance.


(I wonder who will, instead of answering the question, be the first to post: - Why not use Ogust? )

[jillybean]

Is Ogust banned in your jurisdiction?
I only know of feature ask and ogust , someone is bound to have their own home grown method 😉

I play a disciplined weak 2 in 1st and 2nd seat, 2 of top 3 honours

3rd seat wide ranging, sometimes 5 cards
(Not a recommendation, just describing what I play)

[mycroft]

Oh, I can tell you why you don't use Ogust: you have strict requirements on suit quality, even NV. (Note, they don't have to be *good*, just strict. "NV 1st seat, I won't have AQxxxx or better" is a perfectly fine agreement (if not necessarily optimal)...

Traditional requests are "assume partner has suit quality, ask about other features of the hand":

• Do you have a feature (and a good suit)? If it's a useful feature, then partner will know there's an entry and can count on running the suit for 1 loser and picking up 4 other tricks in 3NT.
  
• Do you have shortness somewhere? If yes, and it covers my losers, we can make game in your suit; if not, let's stop in 3.

Some play both of these (2NT feature, 3♣ shortness).

In one of my partnerships, we play Feature, and "3NT says 'yes'." This avoids telling the opponents what suit the feature is in (a good strategy is to attack it on the opening lead, in case you can remove it before the "1-loser") at the cost of declarer not knowing where it is (to avoid "it's attackable OL" before bidding 3NT).

One I have seen promoted recently is "Easy Ogust" - score your hand 1-4, and bid accordingly. Don't have to worry about "does QJx AJTxxx count as a good hand? a good suit? Is it 'medium both, equivalent to good one, but which one?' " - it's just a 3 and go from there.

Similarly, one teacher out here likes "good 5, any 6, bad 7" openers. So the most important "extra thing" to know about is "are you on 5?" So 3♣ is "5, 9-11, decent suit", and then 1-3 for the 6 carders (okay, 7s too. But they're *bad* 7-card suits, so they're hopefully useful 6s.)

But the key is, what are you willing to lose? Preempts are a gamble, and there are some hands you will lose on. Are you afraid of missing game? No matter how you ask, you'll have to pass some of those real garbage suits, even NV, so partner doesn't worry (or doesn't worry and bids a no-play game). But you'll lose to those opening them on the hands where you're preempting the opponents. Of course, you'll win on the hands they open and it goes X-AP. But you'll lose to...

That partner that plays "Feature, 3NT is 'yes'" expects our partnership to be near the top of any game we play. So we don't gamble with our preempts; even NV 1st, they're sound. We win on the game hands, and expect to defend at least as well as the field on the hands we give them free run on.

My EHAA partnerships (don't worry about it, but if you want to know about "wide range"...) use 2NT as "natural, invitational, <3 card support". But that is all part of the answering scheme, which is "responder doesn't ask, she tells. Opener is captain". Again, "you don't want to know" :-).

Do what works for your preempt style. But know what it is first.

[DavidKok]

I've written some longer pieces on this in the past, I'd be happy to try to find those if you might be interested. The short of it is that the decision to preempt versus pass is much more important than any subsequent one, especially when it comes to constructive bidding. Limiting your ability to preempt to cater to the times that partner wants to bid on is, in my opinion, decidedly harmful. I therefore also think you are better off doing the opposite of what jillybean and mycroft suggest.

If you want a lot of science, you could restrict opener to what suit quality and strength is suitable for a preempt. Then you can ask for very detailed information, provided partner had the permissible hand for a preempt, you have a hand that is strong enough to bid on, not shapely enough for your own suit bid, not in the range where a blast to game is right and the opponents have promised not to interfere.

[mikeh]

I don’t play weak twos in my regular partnerships, but (before changing to intermediate 2M and 5-8/9 multi 2D) in my most detailed partnership we played a modified ogust

2N asked (only over 2M, we played differently over 2D) and the responses were:

3C. Bad hand…minimum values with no redeeming aspects
3D. Like our hand due to shape (so some 6-4 or a 6331, etc) with a non minimum
3H. Like our hand due to hcp…so above average hcp, no shortness
3S. Maximum, bid close to a 1M
3N AKQxxx in our major (nothing outside)

In the past I’ve played several other versions of ogust and also 2N asking shortness, 3C asking feature

I think feature asking is overrated.

Shortness ask can be useful but it leaks information, which is rarely great (assuming the opps are listening!)

[P_Marlowe]

 mangurian, on 2024-March-28, 10:36, said:

I am asking specifically about non-vul weak twos. They have such a wide range.
Assuming Ogust is not to be used, what else is available?
<snip>

Tighten the range, if it is to strong for the range open at the 3 level.

[mw64ahw]

I aim for only 2 ranges (4/5-8 & 8-9/10) with some discipline.
So for example over 2♦ you can play this which is complex, but shapes out well. (I play this over 2♣)
2♥ ~15+hcp GI
.. 2♠ 6♦4M or AKQxxx♦
.... 2N <shape/strength?>
...... 3♣ 6♦4♥
...... 3♦ 6♦4♠
...... 3♥ 6♦4♥ GF
...... 3♠ 6♦4♠ GF
...... 3N AKQxxx♦
.. 2N 6♦
.... 3♣ <strength?>
...... 3♦ 6♦
...... 3♥ 2363 GF
...... 3♠ 3253 GF
...... 3N 2263 GF
.. 3♣ 4♣6♦
.. 3♦ 4♣6♦ GI
.. 3♥ 3163 GF
.. 3♠ 1363 GF
.. 3N 3361 GF
The following bids tend to have more shape, but weaker hcp
2♠ 5♠ 2+♦ GI
2N 5♥ 2+♦ GI
3♣ 5♥4♠ 2+♦ GI
3♦ 4♥5♠ 2+♦ GI
3♥ 6♥ GI
3♠ 6♠ GI

[jillybean]

..

 DavidKok, on 2024-March-28, 12:18, said:

I've written some longer pieces on this in the past, I'd be happy to try to find those if you might be interested. The short of it is that the decision to preempt versus pass is much more important than any subsequent one, especially when it comes to constructive bidding. Limiting your ability to preempt to cater to the times that partner wants to bid on is, in my opinion, decidedly harmful. I therefore also think you are better off doing the opposite of what jillybean and mycroft suggest.

If you want a lot of science, you could restrict opener to what suit quality and strength is suitable for a preempt. Then you can ask for very detailed information, provided partner had the permissible hand for a preempt, you have a hand that is strong enough to bid on, not shapely enough for your own suit bid, not in the range where a blast to game is right and the opponents have promised not to interfere.

I am interested, please post the links if you could.
I am happy with my weak 2 style but I'm playing very infrequently to know if it is really any good.

 mikeh, on 2024-March-28, 17:02, said:

I don’t play weak twos in my regular partnerships, but (before changing to intermediate 2M and 5-8/9 multi 2D) in my most detailed partnership we played a modified ogust

At what level is Multi 2♦ legal in ACBL?

[DavidKok]

The following thread, while over two years old, still somewhat accurately reflects my thoughts on preempting: https://www.bridgeba...mptive-bidding/.

Since then I've run into more people showing aggression while white versus red (frequently preempting more than I personally would) but not at other vulnerabilities, which I think is taking it a step too far. Nevertheless on balance I think people can gain more by preempting more aggressively.

[mycroft]

 jillybean, on 2024-March-30, 09:25, said:

At what level is Multi 2♦ legal in ACBL?

Open+, segments of 6+ boards only, with defences provided.

There is now an exception for exactly 2, absolutely top-level "pairs" games: the Platinum Pairs and the Reisinger B-A-M. I'm surprised it hasn't been pushed to the other premium Pairs games like the (open) BRP, but I guess the "pre-qualify" requirement (or the "if you're crazy enough to enter the Reisinger when the 3-day NASwiss is right there, good luck" requirement) doesn't apply to (at least day one of) the BRP.

Note also that even that exception is limited explicitly to Multi 2♦, not any other Artificial Preempt below 3NT (that does not promise a specific suit).

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2024-March-30, 11:25, said:

Open+, segments of 6+ boards only, with defences provided.

There is now an exception for exactly 2, absolutely top-level "pairs" games: the Platinum Pairs and the Reisinger B-A-M. I'm surprised it hasn't been pushed to the other premium Pairs games like the (open) BRP, but I guess the "pre-qualify" requirement (or the "if you're crazy enough to enter the Reisinger when the 3-day NASwiss is right there, good luck" requirement) doesn't apply to (at least day one of) the BRP.

Note also that even that exception is limited explicitly to Multi 2♦, not any other Artificial Preempt below 3NT (that does not promise a specific suit).

That's disappointing. If you are playing at a (sanctioned) club, it is up to the CLub Management to define what methods are allowed?

[mycroft]

as mentioned in the other thread:

Quote

Club Games

The Open Chart is recommended for most open club games. Particularly advanced clubs may prefer to use the Open+ Chart, while clubs that mainly cater to newer players may prefer the Basic+ Chart. The Basic and Basic+ Charts are recommended for masterpoint restricted games.

Note the word "recommended". The ACBL gives clubs great leeway in how they believe their games are best run.

Short summary: Yes.

[blackshoe]

The clubs around here "define" what's allowed not by reference to any charts but by "if you want to play something, ask me and I'll tell you if you can". So there is no document to which a player can refer to see if his system is legal. :-(

[hrothgar]

 mangurian, on 2024-March-28, 10:36, said:

I am asking specifically about non-vul weak twos. They have such a wide range.
Assuming Ogust is not to be used, what else is available?
Thanks in advance.

Back to the original question:

There's an enormous number of options available to you.

The first question you need to ask is whether you

1. Want to have a pure range ask
2. Want to concatenate the range ask with some other piece of information

The second question you need to ask is whether you want to prioritize making things as simple as possible or whether you're willing to tolerate some additional complexity

[Zelandakh]

Since you know Ogust but are unhappy with only 2 ranges, I have just the convention for you. First of all notice that there is space for 8 different hand types over a 2NT enquiry, so we could for example choose to combine 4 different strength ranges with a suit quality ask. Let's call the ranges min, low, high, good and the suit quality poor, good. Then we have multiple ways of arranging these, one example being:-

2M - 2NT
========
3♣ = min or low+poor (3♦ asks, then 3♥ =min+poor; 3♠ = min+good; 3NT = low+poor)
3♦ = high (now 3oM asks suit quality)
3M = low+good
3oM = max+poor
3NT = max+good

There are of course other alternatives available here but I suspect this is what you are actually looking for. Rearrange the hands according to your personal taste within the 3-2-3 structure. Just make sure that any response above 3M is guaranteed to be a hand suitable for game.

[nullve]

 Zelandakh, on 2024-April-08, 12:12, said:

Since you know Ogust but are unhappy with only 2 ranges, I have just the convention for you. First of all notice that there is space for 8 different hand types over a 2NT enquiry, so we could for example choose to combine 4 different strength ranges with a suit quality ask. Let's call the ranges min, low, high, goodmax and the suit quality poor, good. Then we have multiple ways of arranging these, one example being:-

2M - 2NT
========
3♣ = min or low+poor (3♦ asks, then 3♥ =min+poor; 3♠ = min+good; 3NT = low+poor)
3♦ = high (now 3oM asks suit quality)
3M = low+good
3oM = max+poor
3NT = max+good

There are of course other alternatives available here but I suspect this is what you are actually looking for. Rearrange the hands according to your personal taste within the 3-2-3 structure. Just make sure that any response above 3M is guaranteed to be a hand suitable for game.

FYP (I think)

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2024-April-08, 12:12, said:

Since you know Ogust but are unhappy with only 2 ranges, I have just the convention for you. First of all notice that there is space for 8 different hand types over a 2NT enquiry, so we could for example choose to combine 4 different strength ranges with a suit quality ask. Let's call the ranges min, low, high, good and the suit quality poor, good. Then we have multiple ways of arranging these, one example being:-

2M - 2NT
========
3♣ = min or low+poor (3♦ asks, then 3♥ =min+poor; 3♠ = min+good; 3NT = low+poor)
3♦ = high (now 3oM asks suit quality)
3M = low+good
3oM = max+poor
3NT = max+good

There are of course other alternatives available here but I suspect this is what you are actually looking for. Rearrange the hands according to your personal taste within the 3-2-3 structure. Just make sure that any response above 3M is guaranteed to be a hand suitable for game.

It's that moment of evening, but I'm struggling with terminology here.
min = minimum hcp (as in Ogust)
max = maximum hcp (as in Ogust)
poor = poor suit (as in Ogust)
good = good suit (as in Ogust)
low = ?

[PrecisionL]

Consider telling instead of asking by using transfers starting with 2NT (for those somewhat disciplined):

3-way transfers:

1) To play in your better suit - will pass partner's acceptance showing 2+ cards.

2) To show concentrated strength in an invitational hand - will bid 3 of partner's suit.

3) Same as 2) but with GF values, maybe slam interest.

[pescetom]

 PrecisionL, on 2024-April-08, 14:32, said:

Consider telling instead of asking by using transfers starting with 2NT (for those somewhat disciplined):

3-way transfers:

1) To play in your better suit - will pass partner's acceptance showing 2+ cards.

2) To show concentrated strength in an invitational hand - will bid 3 of partner's suit.

3) Same as 2) but with GF values, maybe slam interest.

That too is a bit too hermetic for a simple soul after dinner... if I understand correctly you are suggesting that after a weak 2♥:
2♠ = ♠ weak NF
2N = ♣, to play in your better suit
3♣ = ♦, to play in your better suit
3♦ = concentrated hearts GF+
3♥ = concentrated hearts INV

Correct?

[nullve]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-08, 13:11, said:

It's that moment of evening, but I'm struggling with terminology here.
min = minimum hcp (as in Ogust)
max = maximum hcp (as in Ogust)
poor = poor suit (as in Ogust)
good = good suit (as in Ogust)
low = ?

I guess the idea is to be able to distinguish between four non-overlapping ranges

min < low < high < max

and still be able to get out in 3M unless Opener's hand is in the top range.