[olien]

Adam Kaplan and I have been working on developing a version of MOSCITO that is legal for mid-chart use in the ACBL. There are a few hand types however that we're having trouble with, and are wondering if there are ways we can improve our system (outside of the 1♣ structure). Below is a current outline of our system:

1♦ 10-14 HCP, 4+♦, not balanced
1♥ 10-14 HCP, 4+♥, not balanced (5+♥ unless 4=4=1=4, 4=4=0=5, or 4♥-5♣ but not 0=4=4=5)
1♠ 10-14 HCP, 4+♠, not balanced (5+♠ unless a ♣ canapé)
1NT 12-14 balanced (open with 5M(332))
2♣ 10-14 HCP 6+♣, denies 4-card ♠
2♦ 10-14 HCP 5+♠ 4♥


Over 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ openings, we use 2♣ as a GF relay. Over a 2♣ opening we use 2♦ as the typical ask, and over 2♦ we use 2NT as the GF relay. Our 1-suited structure uses all bids from 2NT-3NT, and we use the typical MOSCITO symmetric 2-suited structure (so +1 step). So, each bid contains the following hand types to save the counting:

1♦:
5+♦ 4+♥ 8
5+♦ 4+♠ 8
5+♦ 4+♣ 13
6+♦ 13
4♦-5♣ 3
5♦(440) 3
4♦(441) 3
(40)=4=5 2

for 53 hand types.

1♥:
5+♥ 4+m 26
5+♥ 4+♠ 8
6+♥ 13
4=4=1=4 1
4=4=0=5 1
5♥(440) 3
4♥-5♣ 3

for a total of 55 hand types


1♠:
5+♠ 4+m 26
5+♠ 5+♥ 5
6+♠ 13
4♠ 5+♣ 8
5♠(440) 3

for a total of 55 hand types



2♣:
6+♣ 4+♥ 5
6+♣ 4+♦ 5
6+♣ 13

After 2♣-2♦:
2♥ 1-suited (then 2♠=GF, 2NT/3♣=INV)
2♠ 4+♦ (then 2NT=GF, 3m=INV)
2NT minimum, 4♥, 0-1♠ or equal short (3♦=GF relay)
3♣ minimum, 4♥, 0-1♦
3♦+ maximum, 4♥


So, since all of our GF relays commence with 2♣ over 1♦/M openings, only 55 hand types can be shown below 3NT. However, we don't like the M-♣ canapé and are looking for a solution. Remember, we're in ACBL-land, so our relay responses have to GUARANTEE game forcing values. We would like to keep 2♣ as 6+ if possible. So, any possible solutions would be welcome.

Thanks

[awm]

olien, on 2010-December-19, 23:26, said:

So, since all of our GF relays commence with 2♣ over 1♦/M openings, only 55 hand types can be shown below 3NT. However, we don't like the M-♣ canapé and are looking for a solution. Remember, we're in ACBL-land, so our relay responses have to GUARANTEE game forcing values. We would like to keep 2♣ as 6+ if possible. So, any possible solutions would be welcome.

Pass them. Come in later.

[the hog]

This does not even resemble Honeymoon Moscito.

[olien]

I understand that, but we designed the system to be as "standard" as possible. We normally bid suits in the normal order, except with M-♣ canapés, but want to keep the openings as "natural" as possible by taking out canapé hands from 1M. We would like to move to a 5♠-4♥-4♦ opening structure, but not sure how to go about it

[straube]

How about using your 2N to get rid of one of your M/C canapes? We use it to show 4H/6C and we use a 3D response as an asking bid (3H shows min). I've looked at a bunch of random hands and the bid is a winner for us. More important. we have fewer hands to relay when we open 2C.

[olien]

Right, our 2♣ opening denies 4♠ for us like yours denies 4♥. We can then get strength and exact dist out after 2♣-2♦ so that it can be INV+. Our 1♠ opener includes all ♠ + ♣ 2-suiters. Would you recommend the 2NT opener if it showed 4♠ 6+♣? How do the relays work after that? If you could post a detailed explanation, or message it to me, would be great. Basically, we're trying to reduce the frequency of canapés in our 1M openings so we go less anti-field.

Also, was reading the pamphlet that Marston wrote because I remember it mentioning opening 4M-6m hands with the minor, but looked at the 2♣-2♦ structure and one is basically forced to game if opener is single suited. I'm wondering, does anybody have experience playing the structure he suggested? Or maybe has anybody made a modification of this structure?

Thanks

[Free]

olien, on 2010-December-20, 00:58, said:

I understand that, but we designed the system to be as "standard" as possible.

So why don't you just play standard instead of making a bastard version which throws pretty much all MOSCITO design goals out of the window? I'm not even sure why you'd call it MOSCITO anyway, it's more some kind of real diamond precision with 4-card Major suit openings...

[TimG]

As long as you're willing to limit yourself to mid-chart, you ought to send a defense to transfer opening to the C&C Committee. There's really no chance that they will approve the defense, but I think it is a good thing if the committee regularly sees such requests. Maybe, just maybe, it will eventually soften their stance a bit.

I don't think it matters what you call it, I knew you had in mind a light initial action strong club when you said "MOSCITO". I was expecting a "majors first" approach, but I learned quickly enough.

[olien]

I'll call the system what I please. The reason we went with Moscito is for 2 reasons:

1) We use the MOSCITO 1♣ structure (1♦=Positive, 1♠=double negative, etc)

2) The system uses a 15+ 1♣ opening and 12-14 1NT opening which is same basic idea.

We want to bid suits in a mostly standard fashion so that we go against the field less often.

There's nothing I'm more sorry for in my life than the fact that I lack the imagination to come up with a new name, but that was not the purpose of this post.

Also to Tim's post: It does use a majors first approach when our minor is ♣s. Basically we're looking for a way to bid hands with 4♠-6+♣ differently.

Thought we were getting somewhere when Straube made a somewhat constructive reply, but this is what seems to happen when I see somebody post a new idea on the forums...people spend more time worry about the fact that somebody called an orange an apple, and all they worry about are the semantics of the post rather than the purpose of it.

So, back to my original question:
I want to find somewhere else to put my 4♠-6+♣ hands without changing the 1♦ and 1♥ openings. We are using a 2♣ response to every opening as an artificial GF, and our safety level is 3NT.

[mgoetze]

olien, on 2010-December-20, 10:32, said:

Thought we were getting somewhere when Straube made a somewhat constructive reply, but this is what seems to happen when I see somebody post a new idea on the forums...people spend more time worry about the fact that somebody called an orange an apple, and all they worry about are the semantics of the post rather than the purpose of it.

There are big problems with calling oranges apples. Especially if you explain your bid as an apple, but actually have an orange. E.g. 1♦-(2♦) - your Polish opponent explains this as "Michaels". His partner knows he might have spades and clubs, do you?

[TimG]

Would it make sense to use 2♠ for the 4♠-6♣ hands?

[hrothgar]

olien, on 2010-December-20, 10:32, said:

this is what seems to happen when I see somebody post a new idea on the forums...
people spend more time worry about the fact that somebody called an orange an apple,
and all they worry about are the semantics of the post rather than the purpose of it.

I want to find somewhere else to put my 4♠-6+♣ hands without changing the 1♦ and 1♥ openings.

Why not use a fribitzer?
Or alternatively, a snoggenfreu?

[olien]

The 2♠ opening idea works for us when we're playing in events where multi is allowed. Our opening structure would look something like:

1♣ 15+ HCP any dist
1♦ 10-14 HCP, 4+♦
1♥ 10-14 HCP, 4+♥
1♠ 10-14 HCP, 4+♠
1NT 12-14 HCP balanced
2♣ 10-14 HCP 6+♣ w/o 4♠
2♦ weak 2 in ♥ or ♠
2♥ 10-14 5+♠ 4♥
2♠ 10-14 4♠ 6+♣
2NT any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt
3♣ weak 5/5+ minors
3♦ good preempt
3M normal preempt


However, this isn't possible unless we give up a weak 2 in ♥ or ♠ in events where multi isn't allowed (such as any pairs event). Or play 2♦ showing 5+♠ 4♥ 10-14 and 2NT as 4♠ 6+♣, but then over 2NT, can't relay as well as we'd like to.

[nigel_k]

1. Aren't there ten 5-4 shapes? 2 each of 5431, 6421, 7420 and 6430 plus 5422 and 7411. If the long suit is diamonds, any of these might want to play 3NT. Or if the long suit is a major and you accept going past 3NT with a 7 card major unless weak relay is used, then there are 7 left to fit in below 3NT.

Also there are seven 5+/5+ shapes: 2 each of 5521, 5530 and 6520 plus 6511. So 5+♦/4+♣ for example has 17 shapes not 13.

2. Can you put (some) hands with a four card major into the 2♣ opening. It's not ideal but it looks like you have more space there than elsewhere.

3. I don't know the US regulations but maybe you can use 1NT as the relay over one of a major. After all, you're not going to be very well placed to play 1NT with any confidence after 1ma-1NT.

4. Use 2NT as has already been suggested.

5. Give up the weak 2♥. I learned symmetric relay from Roy Kerr's little blue book back in the 80s and it used 2♥ as 5-5 majors.

[olien]

with the extreme shapes (6-5, 7-4, etc) we end at 4♣ instead of 3NT.

[straube]

olien, on 2010-December-20, 02:34, said:

Right, our 2♣ opening denies 4♠ for us like yours denies 4♥. We can then get strength and exact dist out after 2♣-2♦ so that it can be INV+. Our 1♠ opener includes all ♠ + ♣ 2-suiters. Would you recommend the 2NT opener if it showed 4♠ 6+♣? How do the relays work after that? If you could post a detailed explanation, or message it to me, would be great. Basically, we're trying to reduce the frequency of canapés in our 1M openings so we go less anti-field.

Also, was reading the pamphlet that Marston wrote because I remember it mentioning opening 4M-6m hands with the minor, but looked at the 2♣-2♦ structure and one is basically forced to game if opener is single suited. I'm wondering, does anybody have experience playing the structure he suggested? Or maybe has anybody made a modification of this structure?

Thanks

It would probably work the same. One reason for including 4S in the 2C opening is that it's much easier to balance or compete later in spades as opposed to hearts. It's basically the same thinking that leads some folks to open 1C when 5/5 in the blacks.

One way we can continue when it shows hearts is...

2N-
...3C-sign off
...3D-asks
......3H-weak
..........pass-had invitational heart fit
..........3S-asks shortness
...............3N-short spades
...............short diamonds, relays patterns
......3S-max, short spades
......3N-max, short diamonds
....3H-to play
....3S-sign off (but opener can raise with three)
....3N-sign off

not sure how it would work for 4S/6C but probably similar

[PrecisionL]

olien, on 2010-December-19, 23:26, said:

Adam Kaplan and I have been working on developing a version of MOSCITO that is legal for mid-chart use in the ACBL. There are a few hand types however that we're having trouble with, and are wondering if there are ways we can improve our system (outside of the 1♣ structure).

[snip]

So, since all of our GF relays commence with 2♣ over 1♦/M openings, only 55 hand types can be shown below 3NT. However, we don't like the M-♣ canapé and are looking for a solution. Remember, we're in ACBL-land, so our relay responses have to GUARANTEE game forcing values. We would like to keep 2♣ as 6+ if possible. So, any possible solutions would be welcome.

Thanks

Owen,

Dwayne and I have a similar system design with C3 (Copious Canape Club) and we have not found any problem fitting in the important shapes under 3NT - in a few rare cases a complete distribution showing fragments is not available, but this is rarely important.

I really don't understand your reluctance to use 1♠ - 1NT - 2♣ as a 4-5 or 4-6 canape. We have not found this to be a problem in 2 years of playing this system.

By the way we play transfers over an opening 2♣ (no 4M) and this works really nice.

Larry

[olien]

The reason we are apprehensive about playing it that way is because in the way we're playing, 1♠-1NT// 2♣, the relative length is ambiguous.

[PrecisionL]

olien, on 2010-December-20, 16:57, said:

The reason we are apprehensive about playing it that way is because in the way we're playing, 1♠-1NT// 2♣, the relative length is ambiguous.

In C3 it is 4♠ and 5 or more ♣. Maybe, you are having problems with 5♠ and 4 or 5♣? If so, we use the Roman Club approach (giving up weak 2 bids in the majors):

2M = 10-14 hcp and 5M and 4 or 5 ♣.

[the hog]

hrothgar, on 2010-December-20, 10:54, said:

Why not use a fribitzer?
Or alternatively, a snoggenfreu?

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.