ACBL Legal MOSCITO

[olien]

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

[awm]

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.

 

Pass them. Come in later. :)

[the hog]

This does not even resemble Honeymoon Moscito.

[olien]

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

[straube]

How about using your 2N to get rid of one of your M/C canapes? We use it to show 4H/6C and we use a 3D response as an asking bid (3H shows min). I've looked at a bunch of random hands and the bid is a winner for us. More important. we have fewer hands to relay when we open 2C.

[olien]

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

[Free]

I understand that, but we designed the system to be as "standard" as possible.

So why don't you just play standard instead of making a bastard version which throws pretty much all MOSCITO design goals out of the window? I'm not even sure why you'd call it MOSCITO anyway, it's more some kind of real diamond precision with 4-card Major suit openings...

[TimG]

As long as you're willing to limit yourself to mid-chart, you ought to send a defense to transfer opening to the C&C Committee. There's really no chance that they will approve the defense, but I think it is a good thing if the committee regularly sees such requests. Maybe, just maybe, it will eventually soften their stance a bit.

 

I don't think it matters what you call it, I knew you had in mind a light initial action strong club when you said "MOSCITO". I was expecting a "majors first" approach, but I learned quickly enough.

[olien]

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.

[mgoetze]

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.

 

There are big problems with calling oranges apples. Especially if you explain your bid as an apple, but actually have an orange. E.g. 1♦-(2♦) - your Polish opponent explains this as "Michaels". His partner knows he might have spades and clubs, do you?

[TimG]

Would it make sense to use 2♠ for the 4♠-6♣ hands?

[hrothgar]

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.

 

I want to find somewhere else to put my 4♠-6+♣ hands without changing the 1♦ and 1♥ openings.

 

Why not use a fribitzer?

Or alternatively, a snoggenfreu?

[olien]

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.

[nigel_k]

1. Aren't there ten 5-4 shapes? 2 each of 5431, 6421, 7420 and 6430 plus 5422 and 7411. If the long suit is diamonds, any of these might want to play 3NT. Or if the long suit is a major and you accept going past 3NT with a 7 card major unless weak relay is used, then there are 7 left to fit in below 3NT.

 

Also there are seven 5+/5+ shapes: 2 each of 5521, 5530 and 6520 plus 6511. So 5+♦/4+♣ for example has 17 shapes not 13.

 

2. Can you put (some) hands with a four card major into the 2♣ opening. It's not ideal but it looks like you have more space there than elsewhere.

 

3. I don't know the US regulations but maybe you can use 1NT as the relay over one of a major. After all, you're not going to be very well placed to play 1NT with any confidence after 1ma-1NT.

 

4. Use 2NT as has already been suggested.

 

5. Give up the weak 2♥. I learned symmetric relay from Roy Kerr's little blue book back in the 80s and it used 2♥ as 5-5 majors.

[olien]

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

[straube]

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

 

It would probably work the same. One reason for including 4S in the 2C opening is that it's much easier to balance or compete later in spades as opposed to hearts. It's basically the same thinking that leads some folks to open 1C when 5/5 in the blacks.

 

One way we can continue when it shows hearts is...

 

2N-

...3C-sign off

...3D-asks

......3H-weak

..........pass-had invitational heart fit

..........3S-asks shortness

...............3N-short spades

...............short diamonds, relays patterns

......3S-max, short spades

......3N-max, short diamonds

....3H-to play

....3S-sign off (but opener can raise with three)

....3N-sign off

 

not sure how it would work for 4S/6C but probably similar

[PrecisionL]

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).

 

[snip]

 

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

 

 

Owen,

 

Dwayne and I have a similar system design with C3 (Copious Canape Club) and we have not found any problem fitting in the important shapes under 3NT - in a few rare cases a complete distribution showing fragments is not available, but this is rarely important.

 

I really don't understand your reluctance to use 1♠ - 1NT - 2♣ as a 4-5 or 4-6 canape. We have not found this to be a problem in 2 years of playing this system.

 

By the way we play transfers over an opening 2♣ (no 4M) and this works really nice.

 

Larry

[olien]

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.

[PrecisionL]

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.

 

In C3 it is 4♠ and 5 or more ♣. Maybe, you are having problems with 5♠ and 4 or 5♣? If so, we use the Roman Club approach (giving up weak 2 bids in the majors):

 

2M = 10-14 hcp and 5M and 4 or 5 ♣.

[the hog]

Why not use a fribitzer?

Or alternatively, a snoggenfreu?

 

Actually Richard, have you considered a Hotzenlpotz? I think that might solve his problems.

By the way I am playing a new version of 2/1. It has a 12-14 NT and 4 card Majors. 2/1 bids are forcing for 1 round.

[Cascade]

Actually Richard, have you considered a Hotzenlpotz? I think that might solve his problems.

By the way I am playing a new version of 2/1. It has a 12-14 NT and 4 card Majors. 2/1 bids are forcing for 1 round.

 

I had nearly given up hope that 2/1 would evolve into something decent.

[olien]

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

[awm]

While I see that my suggestion of passing the long club canape hands has been ignored, it was actually a serious suggestion.

 

It seems to me that you create fairly substantial problems for yourself by opening 1M on these hands. Your major suit openings are otherwise five-card majors, so you will want to treat them like five-card majors in competition. Quite often that means a lousy result when opener has a weakish four-card suit in a competitive auction. You will have trouble reaching the best partial after a 1M opening when opener has M+♣. Your relays will be somewhat cramped because of these hands; I understand that you can squeeze all the shapes in below 3NT, but you will very frequently resolve shape at 3♠/3N rather than the much more useful 3♥ (which allows a strength/control ask of 3♠ rather than 4♣). Similarly there will be issues with ♦+♣, and you will often have trouble telling which is opener's longer minor on non-relay sequences.

 

So what happens on these canape hands after pass? If the opponents open, you can often back in at a low-level with the inference that you have one of these hands. For example say the auction goes Pass-Pass-Pass-1♠. Seeing as you open pretty light in first chair, there are not a lot of hands that want to bid over 1♠ now except the aforementioned canape hands. So you can play 1NT=4♦,5+♣ and X=4♥,5+♣. This allows you to show both your suits in one go, and you may even be better placed than after a natural sequence like 1♣-P-1R-1♠ or 1♣-P-1N-2♠. If partner opens, you can easily show this hand with a wide range of bids (again, you can't have any other good hand type as a passed hand). In fact sometimes the initial pass keeps LHO out; most people overcall lighter than they open.

 

I know this goes against the popular mantra of "open as often as possible" and also seems counter-intuitive because the standards for opening become very different depending on shape. However, the standard bidders are often opening these hands with a call that shows very little useful shape information (1♣) and basically invites the opponents into the auction (again, because people overcall lighter than they open). It would be unsurprising if passing and coming in later was actually a win on these hand types, and given the issues that opening them seems to create for the rest of your bidding structure it certainly seems worth exploring. I've played plenty of "Phantom Club" over the years and passing these sorts of hands has often worked out well for me.

[hrothgar]

So, not only has your "MOSCITO" variant abandoning a "Majors First" opening style, its also using 5 card majors (at least a 5 card Spade opening).

 

This system has absolutely no resemblance to MOSCITO which has always been defined by the major suit opening style.

 

FWIW, TimG and I were playing around with ideas for a Midchart legal MOSCITO variant.

 

My recommendation is the following:

 

Keep the "normal" MOSCITO opening structure, but drop the "relays".

 

Use a first step response as strong, artificial, and forcing however, don't use relay continuations...

[Cascade]

So, not only has your "MOSCITO" variant abandoning a "Majors First" opening style, its also using 5 card majors (at least a 5 card Spade opening).

 

This system has absolutely no resemblance to MOSCITO which has always been defined by the major suit opening style.

 

FWIW, TimG and I were playing around with ideas for a Midchart legal MOSCITO variant.

 

My recommendation is the following:

 

Keep the "normal" MOSCITO opening structure, but drop the "relays".

 

Use a first step response as strong, artificial, and forcing however, don't use relay continuations...

 

I am not sure if MOSCITO is really an acrostic but I always thought it was derived from Major Oriented Strong Club Including Transfer Openings. That is what I had on my system card (or notes) when I played a variation of MOSCITO 20 or so years ago.