foobar

Nick (the author of SCAMP) said that he'll chime on the thread later, but the desire to bypass regulatory constraints likely factored into the system design. Dan Neill noted that one of the weakness of TOSR / Moscito is that all hands with ♥ are processed through 1♦, and having a system that spreads the load is desirable.

awm's structure inspired me to tweak it to address some weak points: 1M - 2♣ (GFR) ....2♦: 5332 OR 4oM OR any 5-5 without ♣ ............2♠: 4oM -> symmetric with 3♣+ for short-legged shapes ............2N: 5/5 oM or 5440 with void in ♦ -> then follow 3♦+ ............3♣: 5M332 ............3♦+: As 5-5 ♣ below ....2♥: 6+ single suited -> resolve at +1 ....2♠:4♦ -> symmetric with 3♣+ ....2N: 5/5 clubs OR 5440 with void in oM ...........3♦: 55 OR 65 high short -> then follow 3♠+ ...........3♥: 5440 with void in oM ...........3♠: 5=2=1=5 ...........3N: 5=3=0=5 ...........4♣+: 65xx with low-short ....3♣: ♣, high short ....3♦: ♣, 5422 ....3♥: ♣, 5431, low short ....3♠: ♣, 6421, low short ....3N:♣, 6430, low short ....4♣: 74xx

If this is Moscito Byte, it looks very similar to mainstream Moscito: https://www.bridgehands.com/Conventions/Moscito_Byte_System.htm. What NZ players played this system?

Yes indeed...thanks for jogging my memory. My recollection of it was that the 2♣ structure was different, but it's been so long, and the past two years have been longer :D.

pilun@ is on this forum, so perhaps he can comment on the above? Also, since we have TOSR and Moscito player like Dan (djneill) and Richard (hrothgar), perhaps they can comment as well?

Very nice, this presumably works in conjunction with 1♠ - 2♦ as potentially LR with 3-card support. Is 1♠ - 2♥ NF with 6+, or is it some sort of constructive raise?

@awm: These are valid concerns, and perhaps ulven can comment on the trade-off and stats? @Cyperyeti: I have added the ranges @DavidKok: What do you dislike about unbalanced 1M openings? @mikestar13: The system is intended to be a regular 5CM, except when holding 4441, so ~95% of the time off the top of my head.

SCUM is a very impressive new strong ♣ system by ulven. The central principle is that the 1M openings are unbalanced, and 1♦ includes the balanced hands outside the 1N range, and may have 5M332. 1♣: 16+, 18+ balanced 1♦: Balanced, 11-13 (14), may be 5M332 1♥: 11-15, Unbalanced, can be 4-card if 4441 1♠: 11-15, Unbalanced, can be 4-card if 4441 1N: 14 - 17- 2m: 11-15, 5+, denies major, can be 4om 2M: 11-15, 4M with longer minor, unbalanced not 5422 The 2M openings seem bizarre, but work very well in practice.

As pilun noted, it's a pity that this sub-forum has gone dormant, and this is my attempt to try and revive it. IMO, SCAMP is one of the most interesting recent systems and improves on both TOSR and Moscito. The outline of the structure is as follows: 1♣: 16+ 1♦: 4+♠, denies ♥ 1♥: 4+♥, denies ♠ 1♠: Both majors 1N: 12-15, no 4CM 2♣: 5+♣, no major, maybe 4♦ 2♦: 5+♦, no major, maybe 4♣ 2M: Per preference 2N: 10-15, 5-5 minors The 1♦ as ♠ allows 1♥ as a weak relay, and the 1♥ opening can be passed, unlike a 1♦ opening showing ♥. The 1N denying a 4CM is idiosyncratic, but it can be adjusted per taste. The 2m openings allow full fidelity relays.

Kit Woolsey's book describes a 1M - 2♣ GFR, but it resolves at +2, and resolves shapes before suits, which is a little odd. It seems like we can do better using this scheme inspired by SCUM (by ulven). 1M - 2♣ (GFR) ....2♦: 5332 OR 4oM OR any 5-5 ...............2♠: 4oM -> symmetric with 3♣+ ...............2N: Balanced shapes ...............3x: 5-5; maybe run on 3♥+ for high/low short ....2♥: 6+ single suited -> resolve at +1 ....2♠:4♦ -> symmetric with 3♣+ ....2N: 5440 shapes ....3♣: ♣, high short ....3♦: ♣, 5422 ....3♥: ♣, 5431, low short ....3♠: ♣, 6421, low short ....3N:♣, 6430, low short ....4♣: 74xx This does give up on some LL shapes, but it's probably worth the tradeoff. Once shape is resolved, we can use flag bids to set the trump suit, after which opener's cheapest bid shows a minimum hand (this is only at the 3-level). Alternatively, it's possible to use the usual QP / DCB ask well.

This is an interesting treatment. Do you have any agreements in sequences like 1♣ - (2♠) - 3♦ (♥; drop dead or GF) - (4♠)? In a Rubensohl sequence that showed invite+ strength, opener's pass would presumably be forcing.

You can find the book here (it's in paperback as well): https://www.bridgeworld.com/pages/bookstore/itemdetailpages/itemdetailpage_2299.html. It was definitely an enjoyable read, even if you don't decide to adopt things "as is", and there was a discussion on a potential ACBL-legal version on Bridgewinners (for shorter events; it should be fine for Open events with 6+ boards). There are several noteworthy topics related to symmetric relays, including the use of an alternative to the classic 4♦ terminator puppet, and also an interesting take on DCB. It also features a comparison with various versions of Moscito, and the respective pros and cons. BTW, I think the author (Nick Hughes) frequents these forums, so he might chime in with a word or two.

Agree with the 15+ being too light for the 1♣ opening. Have you taken a look at SCAMP? It's addresses some issues noted above, and features a stronger 1♣ opening. 1♣: 16+ 1♦: 4+ spades, not 4+♥ -> This allows 1♥ as a range ask 1♥: 4+♥, not 4+♠ -> Can be passed to play 1♠: Both majors 1N: 12-15 2m: Natural

I think you are on the right track, and here's my suggestion. 1♣: 16+ any 1♦: Balanced hands outside range 1M: Unbalanced; can be 4441 1N: 14-16 or other NT range 2♣: 6+ ♣, OR 5♣, 4+♦ 2♦: 6+ ♦, OR 5♦, 4♣ 2M: Canapé with M 2N: 5-5 Minors, limited?

Think such a structure is best suited for invite+. It's likely possible to get away with 1♠ without the inversion by arranging for opener's rebids with ♠ length accordingly.

Thanks for the responses. I should have been more explicit that this was a paper exercise inspired by https://sites.google.com/view/ulfn66/home, and the idea was to try and see if we could come up with a workable system based on it that uses symmetric relays. As many of you have noted, the arithmetic makes it impossible to fit more than a certain number of shapes, so it's just a question of organizing for practicality within the given constraints. The objective was to see if assuming the following opening structure, whether it's possible to stop at a reasonable spot in 2M / 2m, while trying to retain +1 w.r.t. symmetric. In other words, 1♥ - 1♠ can be natural or start of GFR, and 1♠ - 1N may be start of a GFR. 1♣: 16+ 1♦: All balanced hands, including 5M332, occasionally (13)54, 11-14 1M: 4+M unbalanced, can be canapé; can have OM, but not LL 1N: (14+)15-17 2m: Natural, 6+ with a good suit; may have 4CM (open 1M with a poor suit) 2M: Preempts 2N: 10-14, 5-5 majors 3♣: 10-14, 5-5m

The inspiration for this exercise came from https://sites.google.com/view/ulfn66/home, so we are bound by the specified constraints.

My bad for not making it explicit, but part of this exercise is having 1♦ as any balanced hand, including 5M332 in say the 11-13 range.

Over 1♣, a 1♥ response shows all hands with 4+♠. It's possible to organize this using 1♥ as a potential canapé in the major suits to achieve what you said. However, consider the auction 1♥ - (3♦) with say 54xx in the majors. Responder may have a marginal hand with ♠, but may be unable to take any action over 3♦, and the ♠ fit is lost. In contrast, over 1♠ - (3♦), at least there's no concern about that particular possibility, and the auction likely went the same at other tables.

Yes, KK-relay is perforce +2 over a 1M - 2♣ relay. The objective here is to try and remain at +1.

This is primarily a paper exercise, but assuming the following opening structure, what's the best way of organizing a symmetric relay structure? Note that the idea is to use 1♦ as a balanced hand with 5M332, etc. 1♥: Unbalanced with 4+ (possibly longer minor) 1♠: Unbalanced with 4+ (possibly longer minor) One possibility is the following: 1♥ - 1♠ (forcing ask): ...........1N: Only 4♥, or 4441+5440, 2♥ = 4441/5440, else reversed shapes +0 ...........2♣: 5+ ♥ + ♣, +0 ...........2♦: 6+♥, +0 ...........2♥: 5+ ♥ + 4+ ♦, +1 ...........2♠: H+♠, LL etc., +0 1♠ - 1N: ...........2♣: Only 4♠ + minor, or 4441+5440, 2♥ = 4441/5440, else reversed shapes @ +1 ...........2♦: 5♠ + ♣, +1 ...........2♥: 6+♠, +1 ...........2♠: 5+ ♠ + ♦, +1 ...........2N: ♠ + ♦, LL, +1 ...........3C: ♠+♥, SL +1 (no LL)

One potential disadvantage with the 1♥ range probe is that it might make it more difficult to locate 4-4♥ fit (since the 1♠ shape ask presumably promises at least 11+).

David, What was the justification used for the 1♦=4♠ system? IIRC, it was played even in the nationals in the days of the GCC. @pilun: How does the quasi-natural mesh with the following? "[Restriction 3] Transfer openings, such as those found in the “Little Major” or “Moscito systems, are not permitted in segments of fewer than six boards. Transfer openings at the 1 level are Artificial and therefore must show at least average strength."

I believe it's essential to preserve fully symmetric relays over all the openings. Over 1♦, the relay is 1♠, and over 1♥/1♠, it's 2[♣]. Since the 1♠ opening promises both majors, it's trivial to unwind the suits (2♦ is balanced, then full symmetric). Note that the flaw with Moscito is that both 1♦ / 1♥ can have OM, and IMO excluding it is an improvement, since it likely works better in competition.

David, See https://nick-coleta.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Scamp-summary-20d-Apr.pdf for a summary of Scamp. In the original version, 1♦ = 4+♠, and the 1♠ opening shows both ♠ + ♥ (with 1♥ denying 4+♠).