[Cascade]

the hog, on 2010-December-20, 18:22, said:

Actually Richard, have you considered a Hotzenlpotz? I think that might solve his problems.
By the way I am playing a new version of 2/1. It has a 12-14 NT and 4 card Majors. 2/1 bids are forcing for 1 round.

I had nearly given up hope that 2/1 would evolve into something decent.

[olien]

So, the solution we've come up with for now is:

1) We open 1♦ on ALL minor 2-suiters in addition to the aforementioned hand types and use 1NT as the GFR over this.
2) We now open 2♣ on 6+♣ 4+M and the opening denies 4-card ♦s
3) 1♠ = 5+ unless specifically 4♠-5♣
4) We've dropped the reverse flannery opening, only sacrificing being able to show 5♠(440)


Now where the mid-chart is in use, we'll use the following preempting scheme:

2♦ = weak with ♥ or ♠
2♥ = weak 5/4+ either way in majors
2♠ = any ♣ preempt or a bad ♦ preempt
2NT = ???
3♣ = weak, 5/5+ minors
3♦ = sound preempt


Any ideas for the 2NT opening is welcome.

Cheers

[awm]

While I see that my suggestion of passing the long club canape hands has been ignored, it was actually a serious suggestion.

It seems to me that you create fairly substantial problems for yourself by opening 1M on these hands. Your major suit openings are otherwise five-card majors, so you will want to treat them like five-card majors in competition. Quite often that means a lousy result when opener has a weakish four-card suit in a competitive auction. You will have trouble reaching the best partial after a 1M opening when opener has M+♣. Your relays will be somewhat cramped because of these hands; I understand that you can squeeze all the shapes in below 3NT, but you will very frequently resolve shape at 3♠/3N rather than the much more useful 3♥ (which allows a strength/control ask of 3♠ rather than 4♣). Similarly there will be issues with ♦+♣, and you will often have trouble telling which is opener's longer minor on non-relay sequences.

So what happens on these canape hands after pass? If the opponents open, you can often back in at a low-level with the inference that you have one of these hands. For example say the auction goes Pass-Pass-Pass-1♠. Seeing as you open pretty light in first chair, there are not a lot of hands that want to bid over 1♠ now except the aforementioned canape hands. So you can play 1NT=4♦,5+♣ and X=4♥,5+♣. This allows you to show both your suits in one go, and you may even be better placed than after a natural sequence like 1♣-P-1R-1♠ or 1♣-P-1N-2♠. If partner opens, you can easily show this hand with a wide range of bids (again, you can't have any other good hand type as a passed hand). In fact sometimes the initial pass keeps LHO out; most people overcall lighter than they open.

I know this goes against the popular mantra of "open as often as possible" and also seems counter-intuitive because the standards for opening become very different depending on shape. However, the standard bidders are often opening these hands with a call that shows very little useful shape information (1♣) and basically invites the opponents into the auction (again, because people overcall lighter than they open). It would be unsurprising if passing and coming in later was actually a win on these hand types, and given the issues that opening them seems to create for the rest of your bidding structure it certainly seems worth exploring. I've played plenty of "Phantom Club" over the years and passing these sorts of hands has often worked out well for me.

[hrothgar]

So, not only has your "MOSCITO" variant abandoning a "Majors First" opening style, its also using 5 card majors (at least a 5 card Spade opening).

This system has absolutely no resemblance to MOSCITO which has always been defined by the major suit opening style.

FWIW, TimG and I were playing around with ideas for a Midchart legal MOSCITO variant.

My recommendation is the following:

Keep the "normal" MOSCITO opening structure, but drop the "relays".

Use a first step response as strong, artificial, and forcing however, don't use relay continuations...

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-21, 04:29, said:

So, not only has your "MOSCITO" variant abandoning a "Majors First" opening style, its also using 5 card majors (at least a 5 card Spade opening).

This system has absolutely no resemblance to MOSCITO which has always been defined by the major suit opening style.

FWIW, TimG and I were playing around with ideas for a Midchart legal MOSCITO variant.

My recommendation is the following:

Keep the "normal" MOSCITO opening structure, but drop the "relays".

Use a first step response as strong, artificial, and forcing however, don't use relay continuations...

I am not sure if MOSCITO is really an acrostic but I always thought it was derived from Major Oriented Strong Club Including Transfer Openings. That is what I had on my system card (or notes) when I played a variation of MOSCITO 20 or so years ago.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-21, 04:29, said:

Keep the "normal" MOSCITO opening structure, but drop the "relays".

Only trouble is that transfer openings (at the one level) aren't mid-chart legal.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on 2010-December-21, 06:08, said:

Only trouble is that transfer openings (at the one level) aren't mid-chart legal.

Sorry, should have been more explicit:

What if you tried soemthing like the following:

2C = single suited with 6+ Clubs (denies 4 Diamonds, a good 4 card major)
1N = 11+ 14 HCP balanced
1S = 4+ spades, unbalanced, ~9-14 HCP
1H = 4+ Hearts, ~ 9-14 HCP (could be a balanced 13-14)
1D = Single suited in Diamonds
OR two suited with minors
OR balanced with 2+ Diamonds and 4 Spades

After a 1S opening,

2/1 = natural NF
1NT = forcing (natural responses)

After

1S - 1N
2x

2x +1 = artificial game force
Other responses = show game invitational values

[Free]

That's a lot closer to current MOSCITO versions, but I still see some old stuff .

I'd keep the 1♦ opening natural (6+♦ or 54+m), and the 1♥ opening unbalanced (is Kaplan Inversion allowed?). Also, with 6m-4M we open the minor these days, independant of the M suit quality.

Biggest drawback of my proposal is that there's no difference between 5M-4m and 4M-5m hands, which you have these days by rebidding 1NT after the relay with longer m. Since you want full relays, this could be a big problem since you're losing a step in all 2-suited schemes.

[rbforster]

I liked the idea of passing with some club hands to help keep your 1 level openings natural and have played a Silent Club style where many more hands passed than Adam's suggestion of just the canape ones (I used 2♣ as a preempt instead). I'm not sure about your opening standards in 3rd/4th, but if you're still opening 10-14 unbal and 12+ bal, it'll be quite rare to miss game although you may pass out some partials. This happens much less than you might think, given you are only passing with unbalanced club hands of around average strength, so it's likely someone else will open anyway.

2N as 20-21 might help narrow your strong club range, especially in competitive auctions, and will get you a little more with the field. An alternate more exotic treatment would be a strong specific 2 suiter that didn't want to open 1♣ anticipating a distributional auction where it would be poorly placed (maybe 5♥/6+m?).

I know 3♣ with both minors is a better preempt than 2N with the same hands, but I will add that since 2N is normally played as forcing you can put some strong hands in there too where you want to play 5m or 6m in partner's choice of minor.

[olien]

My biggest worry about passing the 4M-5♣ hands is say the auction goes p-p-1♠-p to me. Now I've a good hand and no good bid...In 3rd and 4th seat we play a more standard precision base: 1♠=10-16ish, 5+♠ unless a lead-director with 4. So, 2♣=some form of drury, so how would I bid with these good 4M-5♣ hands? We need the drury since we pass balanced 10-12- counts (12- only when vulnerable). What we don't mind doing is opening 1M with 4M-5m, but we didn't want to do it with 4M-6+m which was the initial goal of this thread: what to do with 4♠-6+♣.

So say we went to:
1♦ = 6+♦, both minors, 6+♦-4+M
1♥ = 4♥-5m or 5+♥ or 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5
1♠ = 4♠-5m or 5+♠
1NT = 12-14 balanced
2♣ = 10-14 6+♣ <4♦

This seems very similar to what we have now. Or am I missing something? This is basically what others are advocating as MOSCITO, yet the only difference I can see is that we open 4M-5♦ hands with 1♦ while they all open it with 1M. We like to make use of the 1NT opening to better define our other openings as unbalanced, or rather "not balanced." So, really, what am I missing about the opening bids that makes my system NOT Moscito except that we open 4M-5♦ hands with 1♦ instead of 1M and we put more 3-suiters into 1♦ rather than 1M?

[edit] Also say it goes (P)-P-(P) to my partner, and I've passed a 4M-5♣ hand with 13 highs. Is he really supposed to open his 2=4=4=3 12 count? From his perspective, game isn't good, and opening could just be for the opponents to come in with ♠ and bid and make 2♠. Say my hand is: AKxx Txx x KQJxx and my partner's hand is xx AJxx AKxx T9x. Now 3NT is cold, but my partner will be afraid to open. Sure, bidding these hands after the opponents have opened is relatively easy, but doing it when partner is the only one bidding, seems like it causes more problems than it solves. But maybe you're right, removing the 4M-5♣ hands from 1M may be better, but where would you suggest we move these hands? We don't care for affecting the "natural" meaning of 1♦. Also, opening the minor 2-suiters with 1♦ and sorting out the relative length later or even if the auction becomes competitive is pretty easy since no need for natural NT bids. NT bid = longer ♣ and 3♣ bids = longer ♦.

[hrothgar]

When most people think about MOSCITO, they immediately starting thinking strong club and symmertric relay.
I'd argue that these are consequences of the "real" stuff that characterizes the system

Here's my attempt to define the key factors that define MOSCITO

1. Put as much pressure on the opponents as possible

• It's often better to get to a reasonable contract in two bids than a great contract in eight
  
• 2M is a great contract (It's even better if the opponents can't tell whether you have a seven or an eight card fit)

2. Light / limited openings

3. "Major Oriented": Limited openings are designed to clarify major suit holdings ASAP

• Clarify whether you have a 4+ card major ASAP (Majors first openings)
  
• Some limited bids might be ambiguous about major suit length. Make sure these are preemptive.
  
• Try to make sure that bids that deny show length in some other suit

[straube]

olien, on 2010-December-21, 12:22, said:

So say we went to:
1♦ = 6+♦, both minors, 6+♦-4+M
1♥ = 4♥-5m or 5+♥ or 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5
1♠ = 4♠-5m or 5+♠
1NT = 12-14 balanced
2♣ = 10-14 6+♣ <4♦

I think this structure puts too few hand types into 1D and too many into 1M. For instance, all of the 1D hand types could be unwound starting with...
2C-minors
2D-just diamonds
2H-4H/6D
2S-etc. 4S/6D

and what then would a reply of 1M to 1D try to accomplish? Finding fits opposite 4M/6D hands? Or requiring 5M for a response? My thought is that if you put only enough hand types in 1D to be relayed after 1D-1N, then 1D is probably underutilized.

Also, you won't have enough room to relay the major suit patterns after 1M-2C.

[olien]

So do you suggest that we play 1♦ as:

4M 6+♦
both minors
6+♦
4M-5♣
or any 3-suiter w/o 5M?

We're not really fans of this because now 1♦ becomes theoretically 0+ (4=4=0=5 dist), and we don't really care to have to use a precision 2♦ opener.

Any other solutions?

[straube]

olien, on 2010-December-21, 15:26, said:

So do you suggest that we play 1♦ as:

4M 6+♦
both minors
6+♦
4M-5♣
or any 3-suiter w/o 5M?

We're not really fans of this because now 1♦ becomes theoretically 0+ (4=4=0=5 dist), and we don't really care to have to use a precision 2♦ opener.

Any other solutions?

It would be helpful to know what is most important to you. For instance, are you trying to open four-card majors? If so, you will not be able to relay over these openings unless you get rid of some of the patterns with 2-level openings. Opening 1S with 5 spades or canapes with 4 spades are just too many hand patterns for relays. So are relays more important or opening 4M more important?

We've designed a system with the goal of maximizing relays. Our openings are...

1C-16+ or 17+ bal
1D-11-13 bal or any 3-suited or 5m/5m or 4M/6D
1M-5+
1N-14-16
2C-6 clubs, could have side diamond or spade
2D-6 diamonds, could have side club
2M-weak 2
2N-6C, 4H

As you can see, we have room to relay over 1M or 2m. After 1D-1H, 1S-2D is artificial relay for all of opener's patterns. So, too, are 1D-1M, 2C-2OM and 1D-1S, 2D-2H.

But at the cost of having a nebulous 1D.

That may not suit you. But the point is that there is a tradeoff. If you want 1D to promise four diamonds, that will help partner when he wants to raise diamonds, but it is inefficient from the POV of maximizing relay opportunities.

Btw, we had a discussion maybe a year ago about making a system that was similar to Moscito and that could be played in ACBL-land. Posters (me included) were suggesting using things like 2C to show both majors, and 2M to offload some major/minor patterns and even preempting some of the club hands.

The solutions became quite silly imo. At some point the thread ended with no good answer.

The problem is that the ACBL prevents 1D and 1H from being used to show the most important suits (hearts and spades) and it's just very hard or impossible getting around that. Open those hands one step up and relays are much harder.

[nigel_k]

To be honest I think four card majors are at best a marginal gain even when you can relay at a low level. If you relay with 2♣ then there will always be an uncomfortably large number of shapes to deal with after a major suit opening and so you are better just playing five card majors and a nebulous diamond, e.g. the original symmetric 1♦ which is always a two or three suiter and open 2♣/2♦ with one suiters. It wouldn't be MOSCITO at all but would still be a decent system and the relays would work a lot better.

[rbforster]

straube, on 2010-December-21, 15:46, said:

The problem is that the ACBL prevents 1D and 1H from being used to show the most important suits (hearts and spades) and it's just very hard or impossible getting around that. Open those hands one step up and relays are much harder.

Under a reasonable reading of GCC, you can play 1♦ showing 4+ spades and 10+ points, and 1♥ as 4+ natural. Of course this doesn't give you a chance to use 1♠ for diamonds or other nice features, but you could try this:

1♦ "0+" 4♠ unbalanced canape or 4(441), 4S/5+m or 4S/5+H
1♥ 4+♥ unbalanced. Hearts and a minor, either longer, 1444, or 6+ single suited
1♠ 5+ standard
1N 12-14 balanced, includes 5H(332)
2♣ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major)
2♦ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major)

If 1♥ seems too overloaded here (I think it's manageable with KI and 1H-1S-1N showing 5H/4+m), you can remove the 6+ heart 1-suiters to 2♥.

[hrothgar]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 17:26, said:

Under a reasonable reading of GCC, you can play 1♦ showing 4+ spades and 10+ points, and 1♥ as 4+ natural. Of course this doesn't give you a chance to use 1♠ for diamonds or other nice features, but you could try this:

Sadly, the ACBL doesn't agree that "All purpose" = 4+ Spades
If if they did, you can't play 1S as 4+ Diamonds

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-21, 17:38, said:

Sadly, the ACBL doesn't agree that "All purpose" = 4+ Spades

Sure they do, it just depends on how you ask them. Give them my opening bid structure and offer 1♦ as "0+ catchall, 10-14 points" and I'm sure they'll say it's legal. Don't ask questions you don't want the answers for and you'll be fine. That's really all I have to say about this, since we all know it's futile to expect either rational or consistent answers from the ACBL on matters of conventions. Play what you want and have your good excuses ready.

[hrothgar]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 18:14, said:

Sure they do, it just depends on how you ask them. Give them my opening bid structure and offer 1♦ as "0+ catchall, 10-14 points" and I'm sure they'll say it's legal. Don't ask questions you don't want the answers for and you'll be fine. That's really all I have to say about this, since we all know it's futile to expect either rational or consistent answers from the ACBL on matters of conventions. Play what you want and have your good excuses ready.

I prefer not to play rather than resort to cheating

And, no if, ands, or buts about it...
What you are describing is cheating

[rbforster]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-21, 18:15, said:

And, no if, ands, or buts about it...
What you are describing is cheating

Tell me exactly how it is cheating if you submit your system to the ACBL and they say it is legal? I would argue that's the only definition of legal you should be certain of - not one based on your speculation, or my speculation, or that somebody's friend's aunt asked Memphis about something vaguely related and got some unclear answer that is tangentially related to this. Note that I didn't say not to disclose the details of the 1♦ shapes if asked by your opps.