olien

Playing, Matchpoints: [hv=pc=n&s=s732hj52dkqt7ckqt&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp4h4s]133|200[/hv] Do not have any way to show a good 4M opening

We tried a 2♠ opening as 4♠ 5+♣ and it didn't work well (at least not in partnership bidding). We were getting burned at a pretty high rate for not being able to play 2 of opener's primary suit. However, since we removed the ♥-♣ hands to 1♥, might be able to try something like this: 1♣ = 15+ any 1♦ = 4+♦, not balanced, 10-14, denies 4-card ♥ 1♥ = 4+♥ 10-14, may have minor-suit canapé 1♠ = 5+♠ 10-14 1NT = 11-14 balanced 2♣ = 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4+♠ (denies 4♦ or 4♥) 2♦ = weak 2 in a major 2♥ = majors weak 2♠ = any ♣ preempt, or a bad ♦ preempt 3♣ = minors weak 3♦ = sound preempt So a 1♥ opening can have: 4+♥ 4+♣ 4+♥ 4+♦ 6+♥ 5+♥ 4+♠ 4♥(441) 44(50) 04(54) 5♥(440) I think that's all of the hand types. However, on partscore hands, how would we find ♠ if we use 1♠ as the strong response? Might be better to use 1♠=forcing NT, 1NT=GFR, 2m=5(+)♠ better minor and 1♥-2♠ = natural weak? Then after 1♥-1NT, can maybe use something like this (and this is very much off of the top of my head) 2♣ = 5+♥ 4+♠ or 3-suited ---> 2♥ = 5+♥ 4+♠ ......2♠ = 44(50) or 04(54) ......2NT = 4(441) ......3♣+ = 5(440) 2♦ = 4+♥ 4+♣ 2♥ = 6+♥ 2♠+ = 4+♥ 4+♦ And after 2♣-2♦: 2♥ = 1-suited 2♠ = 5♣ 4♠ (can only be 4(31)5 or 4225 since 4(40)5 opens 1R, now 3♦ = GFR, 2NT/3♣ = INV) 2NT = minimum 4♠ 6+♣, 0-1♥ or equal short 3♣ = minimum 4♠ 6+♣ 0-1♦ 3♦ = maximum, 4♠ 6+♣ 0-1♥ 3♥ = maximum, 5=1=1=6 3♠ = maximum 4=2=1=6 3NT = maximum 4=3=0=6 4♣ = maximum 5=2=0=6 (we've chosen to omit 7/4's when a 5/5 step is not available because 6-5 is statistically more common than 7-4 according to the Encyclopedia of Bridge) Any thoughts on this structure? Also, the ACBL has approved the defense to a 1♥ opening showing 12-21 pts and 5+♠ that uses totally natural responses, including a 1♠ response as a sign-off. Wonder why this was approved but we can't get something similar approved for 1♦ opening showing ♠ which is probably easier to defend against because the opponents have an extra call below 1♠ that isn't afforded by the 1♥ opening showing spades.

*like*

No, because 2/1 is a basic system of 5-card major openings, usually a 15-17 NT, and a forcing 2♣ opening. Just like moscito is a basic system of 12-14 NT's and a 15+ 1♣ opening. The only difference between the original MOSCITO and our system is what suits we choose to open. Not what the suits change. I'll use your own words in saying that Cascade's example is disingenuous because the example he gave doesn't resemble 2/1 GF. I don't know where you're from, but your crying to the director would never go here. If you called the director the directors would ask you why you didn't bother to look at the opponent's convention card. It is there for a reason, and not as table decoration.

LOL Mateusz :D very nice.

Ok, what do you suggest we call it? "Modified Precision" seems like a misnomer because it doesn't use 5-card majors, and our 1♣ structure is not anything close a "normal" precision 1♣ opener, and we use relays over all of our openers, and don't use a precision 2♦ opener. Also, our 1♣ is weaker than a normal precision 1♣ opener, and our other openers DENY having a balanced hand. So, what would you suggest we call it?

We actually have enough room after 1♥-2♣ to relay out all of the hand types, but its pretty cramped: 1♥-2♣: 2♦ = 4+♥ 4+♣ or 3-suited 2♥ = 6+♥ 2♠ = 5+♥ 4♦ 2NT = 5+♥ 5+♦ 3♣+ = 5+♥ 4(+)♠ (5-6s end up at 4♣, don't get to show 4-7s since no 5-5 step) After 1♥-2♣// 2♦-2♥: 2♠ = 5+♥ 4♣ 2NT = 5+♥ 5+♣ 3♣ = 4♥-5♣ (either 3415/1435/2425) 3♦ = 4414 or 4405 3♥+ = 5♥(440) Also, wasn't there an earlier thread regarding 1♥-1♠ being like a forcing NT w/o 5♠, and 1♥-2m showing various ♠ hands? Then using 1♥-1NT as an artificial GF is more playable. FYI, its also cramped after 1♠-2♣ and here is the structure below: 1♠-2♣: 2♦ = 5+♠ 4+♣ or 5+♠ 5+♥ or 5(440) 2♥ = 6+♠ 2♠ = 5+♠ 4♦ 2NT = 5+♠ 5+♦ 3♣+ = 5+♠ 4♥ After 1♠-2♣// 2♦-2♥: 2♠ = 5+♠ 4♣ 2NT = 5+♠ 5+♣ 3♣ = 5(440) 3♦+ = 5+♠ 5+♥ But I think here, using 1NT as the GFR is not as playable as it is over 1♥, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know if giving up the ability to have easier constructive auctions is worth the extra step(s) that we gain by using 1NT as the GFR. Regarding making 1♦ as 3+ and unbalanced is an idea we've considered, but doing so would only affect two distributions: 1435/4135 and makes the gain minimal. With the former we open 1♥ and with the latter 2♣. 1♦ may be under-utilized, but we feel it leaves us better placed in competitive sequences. As for relative minor suit lengths: 1♦-1M// 1NT=4♦ 5+♣ (may be maximum 4-6 planning to continue with 3♣ and 1♦-1M// 2♣=5+♦ 4+♣ Regarding The Hog's comment about how he assumed that saying MOSCITO meant 4-card majors often canapé, this is all I've to say: Opponents come to the table, announce that they're playing precision. First hand out auction goes (1♣)-P-(1♥) (alerted of course) to you. Do you assume that 1♥ shows 5+♥ 8+ pts, even though there are many variations on what this can mean based on partnership agreement. So you don't ask. It turns out 1♥ showed 5+♠ or 11-13 balanced, do you scream murder because you assumed that this showed ♥s because that was what it meant in the original precision? Or better yet, the first time you came up against a MOSCITO pair that had started opening in the 6-card minor instead of the 4-card major, and you overcalled their 4-card major and either got burned or misplayed the hand because they "couldn't" have a decent 4-card major because in the original system they would've opened the major. Did you go running to the police then? The point I'm trying to make is that many partnerships adopt a system, and then adjust it to their personal style. The reason we called this "moscito" is because we started out with the basic system, and changed it to our liking, just like many pairs do playing precision, or even 2/1...we just didn't feel like changing the name. We did make one "small" change and started calling it LIAR MOSCITO (Legal In America Relays MOSCITO)...but don't know if this is enough of a change to appease you

So, we made a slight change and tried it out tonight. However, it didn't come up, and so we have no idea if it's better or worse. We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor :P (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it) The opening structure we're trying now is: 1♣ 15+ HCP any dist 1♦ 10-14 HCP 4+♦ not balanced, may have MUCH longer ♣ 1♥ 10-14 HCP, 5+♥ unless 4♥-5♣ or 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5 1♠ 10-14 HCP, always 5+♠ 1NT 12-14 HCP balanced, most balanced dist. allowed 2♣ 10-14 HCP, 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4+♠, denies 4-card ♦ 2♦ weak 2 in a major 2♥ weak, 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 majors 2♠ any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt 2NT weak 6/5+ majors (any better recommendations would be welcome 3♣ weak 5/5+ minors 3♦ sound preempt 3M standard preempt After 1♣ opening, we use the "new" 1♣ structure (1♦ positive, 1♠ double neg, etc) After 1♦ opening, we use 1NT as the GF relay, 1M natural F1, 2m natural NF After 1♥ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (is 1NT better?), 2NT as INV raise After 1♠ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (again, would 1NT be preferred?), 2NT as INV raise After 2♣ opening, 2♦ is the INV+ relay, and the continuations are as below: ...2♥=1-suited, now 2♠=GF relay, 2NT/3♣=INV ...2♠=5+♣ 4+♠, now 2NT=GF relay, 3♣/3♠=INV ...2NT/3♣=minimum hands with 4+♥ ...3♦+=maximum hands with 4+♥ Dunno if this is much better, moving the "problem" to 2♣, but we're more likely to want to compete when our suit is ♠, but if our suit is ♣, the opponents may be able to out-compete us anyways. Input would be welcome. Thanks

money! 1♦ = 10-14 4♠ <4♥ OR any hand with 8+♦

This is basically the same argument that was had in a prior thread. Its not of any interest to me how people phrase things, and I don't care to try to be convinced one way or the other as I already have my own opinion. Anyways, for those still interested in the original topic, which of the following options do you think is worse? (or if you prefer, which is better): 1) 1M is usually 5 but occasionally 4, and 1♦ is always 4+ (1♥=5+ unless 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5 or 4♥-5♣, 1♠=5+ unless 4♠-5♣) or 2) 1M is always 5+, and 1D is 0+ (3-suited w/o 5M, both minors, 5+D 4+M, 5C-4M, 6+D) Thanks

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?

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 ♦.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Ummm, Adam, you might've mentioned that you're playing minimum equal level conversion, so if partner is 1=4=5=3, might pull 2C...so its pretty rare that playing 2♣ will be a ridiculous 3-3 fit

I'm guessing that in Justin's structure: 3♥ = balanced (or no shortness) 3♠ = ♣ shortness 3NT = ♦ shortness 4♣ = oM shortness Bids at 4♣ and above may also be cue-bids while also showing oM shortness, but I'm not totally sure of his structure.

:) :)

I would definitely go on, and I would've opened 2NT, this hand is worth more than 19 points...

Over 4♥ though, I would go back to 5♣. ♥ rate to split poorly, and so I want to play the safer fit. If partner has 4♥, there's a fair chance of a 5-1 split, and I don't want to have to deal with that, and if partner is 6-5 or 6-4 (or 5-4), then I prefer to play our 12(11) card fit. Sure, if partner's hearts are AKQx, it may be better to play 4♥, but that seems like a pretty unlikely holding, and in my partnership style, my partners would tend to open 1♥ with that holding.