1S opening in moscito

[Flame]

Did anyone try to use the 1S to distinguge between 4 card spade suit and 5 cards suit ? so 1S would show 4 spades while 1H would be 5 cards ?

[hrothgar]

I've never seen this in any of the official MOSCITO variants

 

1. I don't see much need for this

 

2. Redefining 1♠ to show 5+ Spades would require using 2♦ to show 6+ Diamonds or 5+ Diamonds and 4+ Clubs. You're losing a very valuable preempt.

 

3. If you were to do this, you'd probably want to use 1♥to show 5+ Spades and 1♠ to show 4

[MickyB]

I'm developing something along those lines, hopefully to appear soon under the name "Gemini" - as well as finishing off the continuations, I need to ask a friend's permission to use the name.

 

I think there are big advantages to this. Dual spade openings allow you to comfortably show the boss suit whenever you have them and are in range. It also puts partner in a much better position to judge competitive auctions - after all, if 5 card majors didn't have benefits when opened, people would be unlikely to play them!

 

Richard's point about the 2♦ opening is fair. It's a case of whether the gains outweigh the costs. Obviously, I believe that they do :(

 

Btw, my preference is using 1♦ as precisely 4♠ and 1♥ as nat. I've seen a couple of related systems - Glen Ashton's Storm uses a 1♦ opening showing 4-5♠ (1♠ 5+cards) and another strong club system - I forget the name - used a 1♦ opening as 3-4♠.

Edited February 20, 2007 by MickyB

[hrothgar]

I'm developing something along those lines, probably to appear soon under the name "Gemini".

 

I think there are big advantages to this. Dual spade openings allow you to comfortably show the boss suit whenever you have them and are in range. It also puts partner in a much better position to judge competitive auctions - after all, if 5 card majors didn't have benefits when opened, people would be unlikely to play them!

Here are a few random thoughts:

 

1. My impression is that the spread of 5 card major based systems is (largely) a function of the relative simplicity in teaching these methods. 5 card majors seem much better suited towards a rules based approach. In contrast, many systems based on 4 card majors require a fair amount of judgement regarding minimum biddable suits and the like. I've seen no really compelling studies suggesting that 5 card majors are theoretically superior. (And I doubt that the ease of teaching Gemini to random duffers is going to be one of your explicit design goals)

 

2. As I am sure you are aware, when you clarify your Spade holding to partner, you also clarify it for the opponents. I think that the uncertainty about opener's Spade length following a 1♥ - 2♠ raise is one of MOSCITO's strongest features. The opponents have no idea whether we're sitting on an eight card fit (and should balance) or whether we hold a seven card fit where they really want to avoid the three level. In contrast, opener's has a very precise idea about our fit. Admittedly, you could accomplish the same thing with a 1♠ that promises 5+ cards and a 2♠ response that promised 2 card support (I saw a BW advocating just this a couple years back).

 

3. I think that you're allocation of bidding Space is going to be pretty inelegant. You're gonna have a lot of dead Space.

 

4. If you are going to play these types of methods, its unclear if you want to focus on the Spade suit. My own belief is that precise information about Heart length is likely to be much more useful during competitive auctions. (I'm going to avoid the near mandatory Reese comments)

[MickyB]

Richard -

 

I don't want to get into a discussion of all this just yet, as I'd like to present reasoning and system simultaneously. Would you care to elaborate on point three, please? Oh, and I'm not actually sure which Reese quotes you are referring to!

[Free]

I agree with Richard that the ♥ length is more important than the ♠ length. People can more easily preempt over ♥ and will do so. If you CAN distinguish between 4 or 5 ♥ as opener, this is important for partner to maximize the preempting possibilities.

 

5 card Major systems make it easier after a Major opening to compete, because partner usually has only 5 cards in the suit. Playing MOSCITO, I've realized that you get a lot of problems to let opener define his Major suit length in competition after a Major opening. Most of the time opener has either 4 or 5 cards in the Major. One of the advantages without competition in direct seat is that balancing seat is a step behind, but then you're not going to bid game that easily. When partner is strong however, it's a completely different story.

[hrothgar]

Richard -

 

I don't want to get into a discussion of all this just yet, as I'd like to present reasoning and system simultaneously. Would you care to elaborate on point three, please? Oh, and I'm not actually sure which Reese quotes you are referring to!

Point Three was (largely) a reference to relay type continuations. I suspect that you're going to find that you have way more bidding space available than you actually need. Admittedy, this would permit you to raise the level of the initial relay or throw in a range ask or some such. Even so, its a concern.

 

As for the "Reese" comment... The was an offhand reference to the whole debate about the "Great Accusation" where Reese and Shapiro were alledged to have been signalling Heart length to one another. I've actually seen some interesting discussions that

 

1. Assumed that Reeese Shapiro were signalling Heart length

2. Tried to figure out if it made more more sense to signal Heart length rather than Spade length

[Flame]

2. As I am sure you are aware, when you clarify your Spade holding to partner, you also clarify it for the opponents. I think that the uncertainty about opener's Spade length following a 1♥ - 2♠ raise is one of MOSCITO's strongest features. The opponents have no idea whether we're sitting on an eight card fit (and should balance) or whether we hold a seven card fit where they really want to avoid the three level. In contrast, opener's has a very precise idea about our fit. Admittedly, you could accomplish the same thing with a 1♠ that promises 5+ cards and a 2♠ response that promised 2 card support (I saw a BW advocating just this a couple years back).

Funny but this is exactly what motivate me to have 2 bids showing spades.

You say in your system 1H-2S could be 8 card fit or 7 card fit and this is a very important factor for the competitive decision of your opponents, if you got 8 they should many time overbid you to the 3 level if you got 7 they should let you play.

On the other side your 1H-2S could have a 9 card fit and then you fooled yourself when you wont bid to 3S over their 3X.

My idea solve this and keep the gain. The responder know the exact trump fit and will support to what even he want while the opponent dont know the fit.

with 3/4 i can bid 2S over 4 card only opening and parnter wont have to think of bidding 3 spades if he got 5 cards like he might do in other system fearing a 5-4 fit exsistence.

The responder hold's all the information and can use it and sometimes not use it he is in control.

[hrothgar]

Playing MOSCITO, a 2♠ raise promises precisely 3 card Spade support.

If we have a 9 card fit, opener will know.

[Flame]

This is good, and since i like it i want to be able to use this benefit but not lose the 5 card major opening benefits especially when the opponenets prempt and responder need to know if we can bid to the 3 level or not.

[Flame]

Thanks for the comments.

My feeling now is that it could help but doesnt worth a 1 level bid.

Im considering some kind of 6/4 or 5 system with fantony 2 level.

So with 5 card ill open 2S while with 4 cards or 6 ill open 1S. could be use for H too but need to decide what to open with 5-4 in the major (the short or the long)

[MickyB]

Thanks for the comments.

My feeling now is that it could help but doesnt worth a  1 level bid.

Im considering some kind of 6/4 or 5 system with fantony 2 level.

So with 5 card ill open 2S while with 4 cards or 6 ill open 1S.  could be use for H too but need to decide what to open with 5-4 in the major (the short or the long)

You might remember that I messed around with '1M = 4 or 6 cards' idea for a while. I was never happy with any of the options for handling major two-suiters. Opening 1♥ on 5♠4♥ would be disgusting (it would need some serious work in uncontested auctions and would create impossible situations in contested auctions). It gradually evolved into Gemini, which I think is much superior.

[kes]

System MALEX , posted some months ago :

 

1C strong

 

1D with 4= Hs (& 0-4 Ss) - - 1H with 4= Ss (& 0-3 Hs) - - 1S with 5= Ss (& 0-3 Hs)

2C with 54+ Ms - - 2D with 5= Hs (& 0-3 Ss) - - 2H with 6+Hs (& 0-4 Ss) - - 2S with 6+ Ss (& 0-4 Hs)

 

1NT / 2NT / 3m with hands without 4card M

 

Regards - kes

[mycroft]

Richard, shouldn't "obligatory Reese quote" be "obligatory Prof. Silver quote"?

 

Sorry for the frivolity, back to serious card-counting. Michael.

[Flame]

System MALEX , posted some months ago :

 

1C strong

 

1D with 4= Hs (& 0-4 Ss) - - 1H with 4= Ss (& 0-3 Hs) - - 1S with 5= Ss (& 0-3 Hs)

2C with 54+ Ms - - 2D with 5= Hs (& 0-3 Ss) - - 2H with 6+Hs (& 0-4 Ss) - - 2S with 6+ Ss (& 0-4 Hs)

 

1NT / 2NT / 3m with hands without 4card M

 

Regards - kes

Did you play your system ? How did it work ?

[kes]

Did you play your system ? How did it work ?

We play MALEX since several years and we are very content .

But we are far-away-from-top-players - so I just can tell , that our bidding is far better than our play :D .

[goodwintr]

Historical note: Jean-Rene Vernes argued (in La Majeure D'Abord, 1973) that it was spades that were most important. He used two of the suit bids of one, 1C and 1S, to show spades (1S for 5+, 1C for exactly four). [He also used two one-bids to show hearts, but one of them was 1NT, and he could never get a "license" for that, so he eventually abandoned it. His last version of the system (or at least the last one known to me), Le Canape Majeure D'Abord (2000), retained the 1C and 1S opening bids for spades.] It isn't easy to invent something in bridge that hasn't been invented before.

 

I've been tinkering for a while with the "two-opening bids-for-spades" idea. It has interesting ramifications. Suppose the bidding starts (natural style, with opponents silent) something like 1H-2C; 2S. Opener has denied four spades (he would have opened 1C with that), so what does he have? I denominate this type of 2S bid a "strange spade." Usually responder bids 2NT over a strange 2S, allowing opener to define his hand. In this particular example, if opener next bids 3C, that shows a strong raise of clubs, whereas a direct raise to 3C (without the strange spade in between) shows a minimum raise of clubs. You can see the possibilities. Suppose the bidding starts 1C-1H; 1S. This spade bid is also strange, because opener (by hypothesis) has only four spades and won't be "rebidding" the suit. So 1S here is a strange spade, allowing opener to distinguish between direct and indirect rebids of 2C, 2D, 2H, etc.

 

The (non-relay) system I have developed around this idea is called (guess what) "Strange Spade." It is by no means a hypermodern style -- in fact, except for the spades-related stuff, it is in some ways quite old-fashioned (and GCC-friendly, I believe). In the unlikely event that you are interested, contact me by e-mail, and I will be glad to send along a copy (about 16 pages PDF).

 

TLGoodwin

[glen]

It isn't easy to invent something in bridge that hasn't been invented before.

Actually it is too easy. For example, 1♠ to show 15+ balanced, or 1♠ to show any bad opening. However to make the invention workable, useful, and integrate it into a complete system is not easy at all.

 

I've been tinkering for a while with the "two-opening bids-for-spades" idea.

In the French team trials in 05, I thought we saw a pair playing their 1♣ opening as showing exactly 4♠s. Anybody remember this?

[Flame]

I've been tinkering for a while with the "two-opening bids-for-spades" idea.

In the French team trials in 05, I thought we saw a pair playing their 1♣ opening as showing exactly 4♠s. Anybody remember this?

I saw one from egypt a year or 2 years ago on ecat.