Moscito 2005 Question

[mgoetze]

I've been trying to play Moscito 2005 as set out in Paul's pamphlet, and I can't quite figure out what to bid with a 5440 hand with 15-17 HCP. If I open 1♣, and get a positive response of 1♦, it seems I am stuck and don't have a bid.

 

Incidentally, I find it really unfortunate that Paul did not complete this project and that it still seems to be impossible to say to a new partner "Moscito?" and be able to assume he will play the same system as you...

[rbforster]

I find it really unfortunate that ... it still seems to be impossible to say to a new partner "Moscito?" and be able to assume he will play the same system as you...

Much in the same way saying "Precision" or "SAYC" or "TOSR" will still lead to plenty of disasters when you play slightly different versions of the "standard" system.

[gordontd]

And if you say "Acol" you can't even be sure which suit your partner will open with a balanced hand.

[paulg]

And if you say "Acol" you can't even be sure which suit your partner will open with a balanced hand.

Or even that it will be a suit.

[akhare]

Are you thinking about reverse relays by opener? With 5440s, opener must relay out responder's hand.

 

BTW, dstraube and have several suggestions for improvements in the area of semi-positive responses to 1♣.

 

Please feel free to ping me on BBO (foobar) or on the forum...

[mgoetze]

I guess that's possible, but the problem is that 1♣-1♦-1♥ ostensibly promises 19+. Responder with extras might make an unwarranted move towards slam if you relay a bit and sign off...

 

I realise there are a lot of "improvements" for Moscito floating around. While I find the search for an optimum very interesting, I'm more interested in being able to play these methods with more-or-less-random partners... so I wish there were more of a standard. The 12-page Moscito 2005 PDF seems to be the best there is, unfortunately.

[akhare]

I realise there are a lot of "improvements" for Moscito floating around. While I find the search for an optimum very interesting, I'm more interested in being able to play these methods with more-or-less-random partners... so I wish there were more of a standard. The 12-page Moscito 2005 PDF seems to be the best there is, unfortunately.

Well, you are five years too late my friend :). Thanks to the neglect and the lack of documentation from Martson (the book is how many years in the coming now?), that will remain a futile goal unless you get really lucky.

 

Back in the days, a few of us (free, hrothgar, ronlel, etc. all) tried to band a common standard together, but it fell by the way side.

 

BTW, relaying out responder's hand and then signing off shouldn't be that big of a problem as long you cap opener to say 12 QPs and require that responder have 8+ to carry on after the attempted sign off.

 

A more pertinent example of a frequent problem is the wrong siding NT contracts after 1♣ - 1♥ (SP bal or no 5 CM) since responder will often rebid 1N. Of course, this can be solved if opener bids 1N with min bal hands over 1♥.

 

All this can be worked around with agreements, but IMO, it pretty much rules up random partners...

[Free]

Back in the days, a few of us (free, hrothgar, ronlel, etc. all) tried to band a common standard together, but it fell by the way side.

Yeah, that's a shame actually. I just don't have the luxury to stay up until 2 a clock every night anymore. :lol:

 

As for the OP's question: since these hands are no part of the relay scheme (responder has to bid 2NT or higher immediately) there's no possibility to show 5440 after a 1♣-1♦ auction. There is however ALWAYS a call you can make: 1♥. Paul explains opener should show his hand when minimum, but nobody says you can't just bid 1♥ anyway. With 5440 you just have to relay.

[akhare]

As for the OP's question: since these hands are no part of the relay scheme (responder has to bid 2NT or higher immediately) there's no possibility to show 5440 after a 1♣-1♦ auction.

One possible solution might be to fit in 5440 at 3S (right after 3H for 5431), pushing out the arguably rare 6430 to 4C.

 

The other (better?) alternative is to simply show 5440 as 5431. Given the rarity of the shape and the even rarer specific combination (1♣ AND reverse relay and 5440), I doubt that it will cause any significant disasters.

[mgoetze]

The other (better?) alternative is to simply show 5440 as 5431. Given the rarity of the shape and the even rarer specific combination (1♣ AND reverse relay and 5440), I doubt that it will cause any significant disasters.

When this came up the other day I treated my hand as 4441. Any reason you would prefer 5431 over 4441?

[slyq]

dont want to stir anyone up to much but do other people think (than myself) think moscito is not that great a system

[hrothgar]

dont want to stir anyone up to much but do other people think (than myself) think moscito is not that great a system

I think that it is very much a matter of what you are used to...

 

MOSCITO is based on very different design principles than Standard American or 2/1 GF. The goals of the system are fundamentally different.

 

If you agree with the design principles than you'll like the system.

If you prefer more traditional approaches, you're going to hate it.

 

I will readily admit that there are elements of the system that I consider suboptimal. (For example, I'd much rather be playing forcing pass). However, these elements are external constraints. There's not much that one can do about it...

[slyq]

played forcing pass moscito an others of them all for me moscito has always been a fair way behind

[hrothgar]

played forcing pass moscito an others of them all for me moscito has always been a fair way behind

Then don't play MOSCITO...

I certainly don't give a damn what you do.

 

If you want a real response you might want to consider what elements of the system you don't like rather than just posting random complaints.

[mohitz]

What is the WBF policy regarding Moscito? Is it allowed in WBF events? Sorry if this a silly question!

[hrothgar]

What is the WBF policy regarding Moscito? Is it allowed in WBF events? Sorry if this a silly question!

MOSCITO is perfectly legit in most WBF events

[akhare]

When this came up the other day I treated my hand as 4441. Any reason you would prefer 5431 over 4441?

That can work too -- expect that if the 5 card suit is a major, you are probably better off showing it as 5431...

[Free]

When this came up the other day I treated my hand as 4441. Any reason you would prefer 5431 over 4441?

That can work too -- expect that if the 5 card suit is a major, you are probably better off showing it as 5431...

I'm not a big fan of this, but everything can work on given hands.

 

The above depends a lot on suit quality imo. If equal suits, treat as 4441. But if 1 suit is clearly weaker then you better treat it as a 5431.

 

Playing full relays however, I prefer to show exact shape "exact". :P I'd rather enter the 5440's after the 5431's, or just use the 1♥ relay.

 

It's a matter of preference and suit quality. I'm not going to enter an argument which is better, because

1. if you hold such a hand, your opps will intervene a lot in your short suit

2. I don't care to relay with minimum hands after 1♣-1♦

3. for every method described above there will be hands where one method works and another won't.

4. but most important: it's very rare... <_<

[Free]

What is the WBF policy regarding Moscito? Is it allowed in WBF events? Sorry if this a silly question!

MOSCITO is perfectly legit in most WBF events

More specific, it's a RED system. These are allowed almost everywhere.

[Free]

dont want to stir anyone up to much but do other people think (than myself) think moscito is not that great a system

I find this comment irrelevant, completely off topic, and also pretty funny actually. The 1♣ response structure has nothing to do with MOSCITO. You can play any structure you want and it will still be MOSCITO. Not to mention the fact that 3-suited hands are a problem for many systems... <_<

 

Perhaps you can start a new topic with your arguments why MOSCITO is not that great a system?

[slyq]

sorry if i upset anyone some of the -ve i found were

1 15+ club was to low

2 10+ opening seems not to work as well as 11+ for technical reasons (xcept perhaps in spades)

3 canape style openings work best in competition if there are some restrictions and flexibliity in suit quality for openings (a la blue club) (lead directional 4-3 fits etc)

4 if you play transfer vairiants of moscito ( 1d =h etc)

this gives up to the opponents the two bites of the cherry (x and cue)

without the corresponding weak strong relay option advantage you have

if (1c = h)

5 this is only my opinion and outlines some of the prblems i found ( wasnt overfond of various 1nt incarnations in moscito either ) but each to there own luck all

[hrothgar]

4 if you play transfer vairiants of moscito ( 1d =h etc)

this gives up to the opponents the two bites of the cherry (x and cue) without the corresponding weak strong relay option advantage you have if (1c = h)

Hard to play 1♣ = Hearts if you're forced to play strong club rather than strong pass.

 

I think that most anyone would agree that 1♦ = hearts has plenty of disadvantages. However, on balance, I think that the benefits outweigh the costs. The primary benefits, of course, being

 

1. Aligning the level of the opening bid with the frequency

2. Right siding many auctions following a relay response

 

I find it rather amusing that there is a parallel thread going on explaining how transfer responses to natural 1♣ openings are such a great improvement over natural methods or even Walsh.

[akhare]

I think that most anyone would agree that 1♦ = hearts has plenty of disadvantages.  However, on balance, I think that the benefits outweigh the costs.  The primary benefits, of course, being

 

1.  Aligning the level of the opening bid with the frequency

2.  Right siding many auctions following a relay response

 

 

Didn't someone (RonLel?) report a while back that trying to play Moscito without transfer openings resulted in huge system losses?

[shevek]

4 if you play transfer vairiants of moscito ( 1d =h etc)

this gives up to the opponents the two bites of the cherry (x and cue) without the corresponding weak strong relay option advantage  you have if (1c = h)

Hard to play 1♣ = Hearts if you're forced to play strong club rather than strong pass.

 

I think that most anyone would agree that 1♦ = hearts has plenty of disadvantages. However, on balance, I think that the benefits outweigh the costs. The primary benefits, of course, being

 

1. Aligning the level of the opening bid with the frequency

2. Right siding many auctions following a relay response

 

I find it rather amusing that there is a parallel thread going on explaining how transfer responses to natural 1♣ openings are such a great improvement over natural methods or even Walsh.

The main advantage of 1♦ = ♥s is responder's natural 1♠ response.

Our 1♥ shows hearts (not spades) with 1♠ as relay. This means we have to respond 1NT on something like

♠KJxxx  ♥x  ♦Axx  ♣xxxx.

 

Right-siding is not a big deal. Sure you end up in 4♥ by opener if 1♥ = hearts but (1) most other games are right-sided and (2) the opening lead agqainst 4♥ is still blind, though the subsequent defence might be a touch easier. I'm struggling to recall an instance of that.

 

A big disadvantage of transfers is the inability to sit in 1-of-a-major. This has a cascading effect on other responses. When you pick up a hand that wants out, the choices are pass, 1NT & raising to 2♥. Such as

♠Kxx  ♥xxx  ♦xx  ♣Qxxxx

 

You may think this is an easy 1♦ - 2♥. As you wish. I guess you can bid 1♦ - 2♦ as a real raise. Etc, etc. Just love them transfers. (by opponents)

 

1♠ with spades is bad too, so we do 1♦ = spades & 1♥ = hearts, which we are happy with.

 

Of course we prefer Pass = 13+, 1♣ = hearts.

[Free]

sorry if i upset anyone some of the -ve i found were

1 15+ club was to low

2 10+ opening seems not to work as well as 11+ for technical reasons (xcept perhaps in spades)

3 canape style openings work best in competition if there are some restrictions and flexibliity in suit quality for openings (a la blue club) (lead directional 4-3 fits etc)

4 if you play transfer vairiants of moscito ( 1d =h etc)

this gives up to the opponents the two bites of the cherry (x and cue)

without the corresponding weak strong relay option advantage you have

if (1c = h)

5 this is only my opinion and outlines some of the prblems i found ( wasnt overfond of various 1nt incarnations in moscito either ) but each to there own luck all

I underlined NEW TOPIC for a reason... Now we're going completely off topic, well done!