foo

2x post

These days, MOSCITO is (essentially) defined by 1. Light and limited constructive openings anchored by a 15+ HCP strong club 2. Majors first bidding with 4 card majors 3. Transfer opening bids 4. Light 2/1's (~7 - 11 HCP) 5. Extensive use of relays with strong hands Take away the transfer openings and the relays and the resulting system isn't recognizable as MOSCITO Huh. The one I remember seeing, IIRC, did not have the 1 level transfer openings but did have the relays. Looked reasonable to me, but since I did not play test it, my opinion is necessarily superficial.

I haven't looked at MOSCITO in a while, but I thought there was a version specifically created to be legal in ACBL land? As for transfer openings not being legal within the ACBL, I agree with you that this is a very hard to understand or accept stance by the ACBL C&C committee. Especially given that transfer =responses= to openings are considered OK. OTOH, some long conversations with folks who have sat on that committee has convinced me that the task is far harder than most of us not doing it understand. ...and that for the most part the task is thankless. It's an unpaid volunteer position where no matter what you do as a member of the C&C committee, you are going to p*ss off someone. I've also developed a better appreciation of just how hard it is to put together a database of adequate defenses (as in "has a reasonable chance to restore equity") to many of these gadgets that can be used by the average tournament player who is not a system freak. IMHO, the ACBL tends to err too far on the side of caution. But I understand why they feel that is more justifiable and safer than the alternative.

As a matter of fact, I found encrypted signals fascinating when I first heard of them and spent some time studying and playing them in contexts where all concerned knew the experiment was going on and were willing participants. (IOW, !not! in any sanctioned Bridge tournament!) The problem with the sort of encrypted signals that are banned is that We can agree to completely change Our defensive methods based on the presence or the absence of the Key. Say standard signals in the presence of the key and UDCA in the absence of the key; =and Declarer has no chance of knowing what our carding means until it is too late.= OTOH, Declarer =does= have the chance to work out the same things the Defenders do here. The situations are not analogous. It should also be noted that encrypted =bidding= systems =are= perfectly legal. As long as the opponents are told everything they are entitled to before the opening lead is made. An example would be any GF relay sequence where one hand is strong and the other hand is weak- and only the bidding side tends to know which hand is which. NZ Symmetric Relay worked on this principle. I've mentioned the killing defense: pass with strong hands so the bidding side doesn't know that both hands are weak.

jtfanclub, We seem to be having trouble communicating here. Richard's comment about the goal of Bridge being to get the best score is dead on. (I happen to disagree with some of his strategies for pursuing that goal, but he's quite right about the goal.) To do that, we must consistently do whatever has the highest probability of scoring well on each board. To do =that=, we must consistently be in the right spot on each board. The right spot involves both strain and level. There is no way to decompose them. If you want them to be independent of each other, go (back to) play(ing) Whist. On many boards the "right contract" is "no contract". That is to say our proper strain is no strain because We should be defending if we want to maximize our chance of a good score. IOW, we want to as consistently as possible hit Absolute Par on each board. To do better than that requires that the opponents play Bad Bridge. Not something one should count on. Especially if one wants to be a good player. "C" is provably better than "A" at finding the correct strain because 1= it is provably better at finding the best spot when we should be bidding and 2= it is provably better at making Us the defenders (IOW, playing the strain of "no strain") when it rates to be right; and doing it while telling the opponents as little as possible about how to play the hand.

IMHO, mikeh comments mesh very nicely with kenrexford's comments.

Yes, it's banned. No, I don't know why. They lift the bans for unlimited national events, but if you're playing at that level, you're probably doing it for money. Can't sell books on systems that are banned, can't get hired by a client who'll know these systems. And, of course, 99% of ACBL members don't play exclusively in Superchart events. MOSCITO is not "banned" in the ACBL. The only things "banned" in the ACBL are =illegal= methods such a encrypted signals. (and yes, cheating should be illegal. Encrypted signals are cheating because they violate the basic tenet that everyone ATT should be able to use logic to decide what the best course of action is.) The ACBL uses 3 levels of conventions: GCC, mid-chart, and superchart Depending on what form of MOSCITO you are playing, some parts of it may or may not be allowed under the GCC.

ROTFL! :) Richard is frankly "full of 'it' " here; where 'it' is something I used to clean out of barns on the farm. The most popular bidding system currently in use, 2/1 GF, is based on huge amounts of "analytical rigor" by players of the caliber of the Dallas Aces (specifically Bobby Goldman and Mike Lawrence in this case) and analysts the caliber of John Lowenthal, the inventor of Borel, the first serious analysis and simulation tool. Not to mention millions of boards of ATT RW play. There is a sizable community of very talented theorists thinking about and adding to the body of Bridge Theory all the time. WOS and FPS are !not! the only systems or methods based on analytical rigor. To some extent, I do agree with Richard that some Sponsoring Organizations, especially the ACBL, have been too conservative in what methods and treatments they allow. But the "All this innovative work that is the only innovative work in years was banned in a political purge" attitude is way too extreme. The reality is that many of the methods Richard is enamored with simply don't stand up to RW testing as well as Richard claims. NZ Symmetric Relay looked like a superior system until someone came up with the defense of passing quietly with strong hands. Relay systems in general have the bad property of exchanging less information per round of bidding than two way communication systems. Allocating too many bids based strictly on frequency ignores and violates the need to do so based on =utility=. Systems that are too aggressive start being Destructive and Dominant since the chance of being able to bid your own cards well has dropped too low. Etc etc. And of course, there's the fact that Tournament Bridge is first and foremost a =product=. Specifically an =entertainment product=. There always has been and there always will be a tension between "mad science" and what the majority of people willingly accept or put up with in their quest to have a good time.

Josh, you are quite correct that I ignored 33 D's in my post. OTOH, 1= AKxxxx.x.AQx.Axx Is essentially a 20 count. 2= All of the examples you and I posted a= have no H wastage, a very optimistic assumption. b= are control rich. The average number of controls in a 15 count is ~4.5 and you and I are posting example hands for Opener that have 6-7 controls. IOW, what one would expect in 18-20 HCP hands IMHO, all of the examples we've posted are far too optimistic to be basing bidding decisions on. Much more likely is that Opener's suit looks like Hxxxxx or HHxxxx; and that 2/3 of the other three suits are 3 carders. Making the chance of mirror distribution in H's ~2/3 and the chances of mirror distribution in +both+ H+C ~1/3. A's + K's wise, Opener will more typically will have 10-12 HCP in controls. (so A+K+K, A+A+K, A+A+A) and the 6 control hands are slightly on the optimistic side. How would you like Us to be in 4S with these far more typical hands? My personal reaction is "No." I'm all for bidding aggressive Red games @ IMPs. But not suicidal ones.

Frances, As usual, a thought provoking post. Thanks. There's going to be some discussions amongst some experts I know due to your post. One thing I'll note is that if possible usually the KNT pair wants the 1N opening to be Dummy and Responder to be Declarer since Responder is the unlimited hand. In that regard, your suggestion is certainly better than most run outs I've seen.

Fair Point. So perhaps a better way to say what I was trying to say is that Lawyers tend to have better "people manipulation skills" than mathematicians... B)

The more I think on this hand, the more I think 2M should be cue bids asking for stops in the suit and the strength range of opener. ♠T3♥KQT♦K3♣AKJ754 1C-(X)-2S!;2N/3N and we start cuebidding. 1C-(X)-2S!;3suit and Responder is warned.

Who believes that the likely 15-17 HCP and 6+S hands will make 4S opposite ♠Jxx♥xxx♦Kxxx♣Qxx > 1/3 of the time? ...Because that's what you have to believe to make bidding 4S Red @ IMPs a Logical Alternative. (...and if you do, WHY? I'd really like to hear the logic.) Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't see a > 1/3 chance of making 4S here. EDIT: Let's see what a perfect hand for GOP looks like: AKxxxx.x.AQx.Axx This monster has the playing strength of a ~20 count. I know folks who would rebid 4S holding it. ... you lose 1S ~25% of the time. You lose 1 H. You lose 1.5 C's So with this =perfect= hand, your expectation is ~10.25 Tricks. Opener does not rate to be even close to that good. Let's try a "perfect" 15 count: AKxxxx.x.Axx.Axx Playing strength of a ~18.5 count. Still darn good for a jump rebid. Now 4S is only ~25%. ...and these are with perfect hands for the board whose playing strength is considerably better than the average hand shown by this sequence.

Last I checked, the Standard meaning of 1M-1N;3M was 15-17 HCP and a good 6+ card suit. I'm going to assume that's what the OP's sequence shows. You have a =3343 6 count whose playing strength is more typical of 4 HCP than 6 HCP. Contrary to the 4S mainstream here, I think pass is crystal clear. If GOP only has 15-16 HCP and 6 card suit, especially in a semi-balanced 6322 shape, We may very well be in trouble making even 3S...

IME, having X available to ask for a C or D lead against the artificial 1C and 1D calls can be very useful. At the same time, I've found Suction to be better than CRASH at eating enough space that the 1C'ers end up starting their auctions at 2C or higher as much as possible, negating the primary advantage of the space saving 1C or 1D opening. I agree that the Two suited bids can make Declarer play easier. OTOH, the gain we're hoping for is to use enough space that the Forcing Minor side has a hard time getting to the right spot.

Well, by all means, prove it. I'm especially curious as to how C can possibly be better than A in terms of finding the correct strain. If A is better than C in terms of finding the correct strain, then it is mathematically impossible to prove that C is better than A at finding the correct strain and level. "A" is !NOT! better than "C" at finding the correct strain. It's worse. "C" has 3 HCP ranges both for the 1N opening and the 1N rebid and a 2 HCP range for the 2N rebid. "A" has at best a 5 HCP range for the 1N rebid and a 3 HCP range for the 2N rebid unless you accept the 1N rebid having a 6 HCP range. In addition, the stronger the 1N opening, the weaker Responder can be and still take bids probing for the best strain and level. "A" has the weaker 1N opening so therefore Responder must be stronger to have the values for said probes. "C" has a= a tighter average bound on each step in its NT ladder. b= a stronger 1N opening that makes it more likely for Responder to have enough values to probe for best contract. QED "C" is provably better then "A" at finding both the correct strain and level. The trade-off is that "A" gets in the opponents face more often. At the cost of less accurate constructive bidding. That's what the KNT is for. It is not a constructive bid. It's a preempt. The more bids you use for preempts, the less you have for constructive bidding and the more hand types that have to be packed into each constructive sequence. That makes each constructive sequence wider ranging; and =that= means your constructive accuracy must suffer. No way around it. The case for the KNT is that the loss of constructive accuracy is worth it since you "generate enough action" to score well on enough boards to make up for it. I, and many other players, disagree. The hypothesis I'm presenting is that iff an appropriate defense is used with proper discipline, the "action" that the KNT generates is far more likely to be bad for the KNT side than for the opposition. At that point, the fact that the rest of the direction can bid the non KNT hands more accurately than the KNT pair can starts to be a negative without enough compensation to make up for it. But don't take mine, or Peter's, or Richard's, or Mikeh's, or anyone else's word for it. Go test it for yourself. =Use= the defenses I'm showing you against the KNT. =Use= the run out system vs 1N X'd I posted. See for yourself. Independently investigate the truth. People can make all sorts of claims about personal experience. Ultimately, such statements are variations of the logical fallacy of Argument From Authority. The cards and the math don't give a d@mn who you are. If you do the right things with them, you'll tend to get good scores. If you don't, you'll tend to get bad scores. That's the only thing that matters in defining who is "right".

Nope, because you're not considering the converse. Balanced hands, no 5 card major. Which is easier to find a suit contract with? Opening 1NT with 10-12 AND Opening 1 of a minor with 15-17, OR Passing with 10-12 AND opening 1NT with 15-17? Since 1m>>>1NT>>>Pass at finding 4-4 fits, it should be obvious that the Kamikaze structure is superior to the SAYC structure at finding 4-4 fits for both the 10-12 range and the 15-17 range. ...and you do what with hands worth 13-14? You are not asking the right question. The right question is something like "which is more accurate: finding the proper strain and level A= opening 1N= 10-12 and 1m rebid 1N with 13-17 (or 13-16 if you make your 2N rebid be 17-19), and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19 (or 17-19 using that method.) or B= Opening KNT and using 1C rebid 1N to show WNT and 1D rebid 1N to show SNT. or C= Passing most flat 10-12's and opening 1m rebid 1N with 12-14, opening 1N with 15-17, and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19." "C" is provably the most accurate of those choices.

The weaker your 1N opening, the less likely you are to be able to afford to probe for a better suit contract. It's a simple fact of math. The Kamikaze, being the weakest of 1N openings, has this problem worse than any other 1N opening range does. In addition, opening flat average hands gambles A= on possibly Declaring with hands that should defend due to ODR. B= on telling the opponents where to place cards if They end up Declaring. Which means you are using a 2N rebid to show a 3 HCP range when more constructive systems have a tighter range of 2 HCP. Wider range has to mean less bidding accuracy and more guessing. Again, simple math. I made no such assertion. I said that reliance on a gadget that gets most of its pluses because the opponents do not know how to do the right thing teaches one to be lazy bridge skills wise. I'll stand by that and we can agree to disagree if you wish. Your analysis of the defense I presented was way off. X is !not! penalty. X shows a 1N hand of a specified range. While it may very well be =converted= to penalty, it may just as well begin a constructive auction between the defenders as if they had bid 1N. As for run outs, I'll even give you the best one I know: 1N X-?? pa!= Forces a XX, business or two suiter with few or bad S's After XX, run outs with certain two suiters are: ..............2c!= H+C or D+C ..............2d!= H+D ..............2h!= S+H, Better H's xx!= single suited hand, 5-6 card suit, puppet to 2C 2c!= S+C 2d!= S+D 2h!= S+H, Better S's 2n!= single suited hand, 7+ card suit, puppet to 3C A different run out structure is optimal after a balancing X. I chose the defense to the KNT after 1st finding the best 1N run out structure I could. If you think you know a better run out system, I'd be happy to see it. Even playing the best run outs I could find, the proper defensive system pretty much neutralizes the big wins possible from the KNT and the KNT pair still has all the negatives of playing the KNT that happen when they =don't= open 1N. No matter how one twists and turns, the bottom line is that the KNT is a preempt made with hands that have low ODR. And that your NT rebid structure =must= be less accurate than systems with a more constructive 1N opening. The partscore battle will have more randomness thrown into it. For both sides. But that's not going to make up for the problems the KNT will give you once the opponents are defending against it properly.

ROFL. ??? Not sure what the laugh is about. =The Kamikaze does have high frequency =The weaker your 1N opening range, the more often you will play 1N when you should be playing 2ofasuit. =Even in a Forcing Minor system, using the KNT means that the other NT ranges are harder to show compared to other systems. One friend who plays it in a FC system basically pretends he can't be dealt 17 counts. They are either down or up graded. The problem is worse in a "natural" system. =The best defense starts with a Direct X showing a 1N overcall and a Balancing X showing a 6 HCP range Balancing 1N whose minimum is the KNT pair's maximum (so 12-17 if Their KNT is 10-12, 13-18 if Their KNT is 10-13). Additionally, you add methods to show high ODR hands. And you don't sweat the small stuff. Upshot is you tend to bid your games and slams reasonably well, and you tend to nail them with fairly high frequency when it's right. Nothings perfect, and they have thrown a random number generator into the auction, but discipline and a good defense pretty much restore equity. =The bad bridge habits in question are things like relying on gadgets rather than better skills to generate good results...

♠AJT7♥KQJ5♦KQ♣AJ4 + ♠Q3♥A863♦A643♣KT2 1st off, and most important, this is =at best= a 50% Grand. IOW, you are Resulting if you worry too much about missing this Grand. OTOH, 6H or 6N are reasonable. 2nd, as others have noted 2N-3C;3H-4N should be Quantitative, not Ace Asking. Worse, S will not learn what they need to know by using 4N Ace Asking here. Looking at their own hand S "knows" that N rates to have 2 A's + 2-3 K's for their 2N Opening. (Thanks to having the ♠Q, S knows that N can't have more than 10 HCP in Q's + J's and is more likely to have ~6-7 HCP in Q's + J's). That means We rate to have all the A's + K's or perhaps are off 1 K. 2N-3C;3H-4D gets both S's suits and both S's A's into the auction. N may not be sure what S has, but they should be very happy that S is claiming to have the Reds under control while N has the Blacks under control. Play for the ♣Q to be in the opposite hand as the ♠K.

?Iff? you have the methods, S needs to take another bid on the basis of a= the 9 card S fit b= the double fit in the Blacks w/ a very real possibility that it's a double 9 card fit. c= the 8 loser, 3 control hand they have. It has the playing strength of ~10 HCP on this auction. A generic 1C-1S;2S-3S will not do it. Opener should pass that invite. 1C-1S;2S-3C OTOH should excite Opener into bidding 4S on the double fit w/ their 6 loser hand. South should take another forward going call. best is something like 1D-1H-(1S);X-(2S)-X Showing 44 or 45 in H+C's and a hand at the top of the ~6-9 HCP minimum range. S has now Told Their Story. If N pulls to 3C, the most likely action here, the ♥K Asymmetric Guard is now in the hidden hand. Change N's hand to something like ♠AQ♥K9x♦KQxx♣98xx, and N should seriously consider converting the Action Double to penalties.

Every 1N range has it's good and bad. TANSTAAFL. Kamikaze (10-12, 10-13): Great preempt frequency wise. =destroys= your partscore accuracy and your constructive NT ladder; particularly in a "natural" system. It's a gadget. Easy to defend against once the opponents know what to do. The easiest NT range to X "into oblivion and beyond". Teaches one bad bridge habits. Weak (12-14, 13-15): IMHO the best range is the disciplined KS 12-14 range. Great for finding good 23-24 HCP games the other ranges will have a harder time finding. Negative inferences when you =don't= open Weak NT are very useful. The sequences 1m-1M;2M and 1m-1M;3M and 1m-foo;3m become very precise. Partscore accuracy still damaged a lot. Strong (15-17, 16-18) Easiest for immediately differentiating playing strength when 1N is not opened. Partscore accuracy better than either of the above. No where near as common as the above ranges. 1N-pa-pa-pa starts being an auction that you won't hear often; but when you do you really won't like dummy. Penalty X's are =more= likely to work when done right than vs WNT since you rate to have communications problems. Thankfully they tend to be rare. 1m openings are now very wide ranging in terms of playing strength.

Chamaco, Someone brought up "Mike Lawrence" style 2/1 GF. In this style, a 2/1 is GF =unless the suit is rebid=. If playing that style and holding ♠A♥QT9x♦xx♣AT98xx as Responder, I'd respond 2C and rebid 3C: 1S-2C;2S-3C Or raise H's to 4H and hope my 6 loser, 4 control hand gives GOP what they need: 1S-2C;2H-4H Another thought that occurs is that ?if? you are going to play 1M-1N;blah-3m as a minimum, it should be reserved for minimum hands that rate to improve the contract by rebidding 3m. Hands that just don't rate to be good dummies for Opener's suggestion(s). So x.Ax.Kxx.Txxxxxx or x.xxx.xxx.KQJxxx would be good for 1S-1N.;2H/2S-3C! in this style since it rates to stink in anything but a ♣ contract. But x.xxxx.xx.AQTxxx would not be good for 1S-1N.;2H/2S-3C! in this style since it rates to be useful in a 2M contract. Playing this style, your 3m sign off attempt is going to be on 7+ card suits most of the time and occasionally on "chunky" 6 card suits not headed by the A. Say those that will play for 3 or less losers opposite a small stiff. This will reduce the frequency of the sequence, but IMHO increase the safety and utility of it.

I'll paraphrase Helen Sobel-Smith: "All the math and theory in the world matters little compared to being able to read the players." Lawyers tend to be much better at reading people than mathematicians...

I'll assume Western Cue Bids = "Pard, bid 3N with a stop in this suit" are on this card. I want the T/O X on lead, preferably into GOP's S guard(s) (p)-1C-(X)-3S! Western Cue by me. Regardless of Opener's rebid, I then start a slam probe... Much better would be for Us to have agreements as to what 2M by Responder means here. If 2S means "please bid 2N or 3N with a S stop according to your values.", I'd be ecstatic...