ACBL Legal MOSCITO

[TimG]

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

Only trouble is that transfer openings (at the one level) aren't mid-chart legal.

[hrothgar]

Only trouble is that transfer openings (at the one level) aren't mid-chart legal.

 

Sorry, should have been more explicit:

 

What if you tried soemthing like the following:

 

2C = single suited with 6+ Clubs (denies 4 Diamonds, a good 4 card major)

1N = 11+ 14 HCP balanced

1S = 4+ spades, unbalanced, ~9-14 HCP

1H = 4+ Hearts, ~ 9-14 HCP (could be a balanced 13-14)

1D = Single suited in Diamonds

OR two suited with minors

OR balanced with 2+ Diamonds and 4 Spades

 

After a 1S opening,

 

2/1 = natural NF

1NT = forcing (natural responses)

 

After

 

1S - 1N

2x

 

2x +1 = artificial game force

Other responses = show game invitational values

[Free]

That's a lot closer to current MOSCITO versions, but I still see some old stuff ;) .

 

I'd keep the 1♦ opening natural (6+♦ or 54+m), and the 1♥ opening unbalanced (is Kaplan Inversion allowed?). Also, with 6m-4M we open the minor these days, independant of the M suit quality.

 

Biggest drawback of my proposal is that there's no difference between 5M-4m and 4M-5m hands, which you have these days by rebidding 1NT after the relay with longer m. Since you want full relays, this could be a big problem since you're losing a step in all 2-suited schemes.

[rbforster]

I liked the idea of passing with some club hands to help keep your 1 level openings natural and have played a Silent Club style where many more hands passed than Adam's suggestion of just the canape ones (I used 2♣ as a preempt instead). I'm not sure about your opening standards in 3rd/4th, but if you're still opening 10-14 unbal and 12+ bal, it'll be quite rare to miss game although you may pass out some partials. This happens much less than you might think, given you are only passing with unbalanced club hands of around average strength, so it's likely someone else will open anyway.

 

2N as 20-21 might help narrow your strong club range, especially in competitive auctions, and will get you a little more with the field. An alternate more exotic treatment would be a strong specific 2 suiter that didn't want to open 1♣ anticipating a distributional auction where it would be poorly placed (maybe 5♥/6+m?).

 

I know 3♣ with both minors is a better preempt than 2N with the same hands, but I will add that since 2N is normally played as forcing you can put some strong hands in there too where you want to play 5m or 6m in partner's choice of minor.

[olien]

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 ♦.

[hrothgar]

When most people think about MOSCITO, they immediately starting thinking strong club and symmertric relay.

I'd argue that these are consequences of the "real" stuff that characterizes the system

 

Here's my attempt to define the key factors that define MOSCITO

 

1. Put as much pressure on the opponents as possible

 

• 
   
  
• It's often better to get to a reasonable contract in two bids than a great contract in eight
  
• 2M is a great contract (It's even better if the opponents can't tell whether you have a seven or an eight card fit)
  

2. Light / limited openings

 

3. "Major Oriented": Limited openings are designed to clarify major suit holdings ASAP

 

• 
   
  
• Clarify whether you have a 4+ card major ASAP (Majors first openings)
  
• Some limited bids might be ambiguous about major suit length. Make sure these are preemptive.
  
• Try to make sure that bids that deny show length in some other suit
  

[straube]

 

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♦

 

 

I think this structure puts too few hand types into 1D and too many into 1M. For instance, all of the 1D hand types could be unwound starting with...

2C-minors

2D-just diamonds

2H-4H/6D

2S-etc. 4S/6D

 

and what then would a reply of 1M to 1D try to accomplish? Finding fits opposite 4M/6D hands? Or requiring 5M for a response? My thought is that if you put only enough hand types in 1D to be relayed after 1D-1N, then 1D is probably underutilized.

 

Also, you won't have enough room to relay the major suit patterns after 1M-2C.

[olien]

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?

[straube]

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?

 

It would be helpful to know what is most important to you. For instance, are you trying to open four-card majors? If so, you will not be able to relay over these openings unless you get rid of some of the patterns with 2-level openings. Opening 1S with 5 spades or canapes with 4 spades are just too many hand patterns for relays. So are relays more important or opening 4M more important?

 

We've designed a system with the goal of maximizing relays. Our openings are...

 

1C-16+ or 17+ bal

1D-11-13 bal or any 3-suited or 5m/5m or 4M/6D

1M-5+

1N-14-16

2C-6 clubs, could have side diamond or spade

2D-6 diamonds, could have side club

2M-weak 2

2N-6C, 4H

 

As you can see, we have room to relay over 1M or 2m. After 1D-1H, 1S-2D is artificial relay for all of opener's patterns. So, too, are 1D-1M, 2C-2OM and 1D-1S, 2D-2H.

 

But at the cost of having a nebulous 1D.

 

That may not suit you. But the point is that there is a tradeoff. If you want 1D to promise four diamonds, that will help partner when he wants to raise diamonds, but it is inefficient from the POV of maximizing relay opportunities.

 

Btw, we had a discussion maybe a year ago about making a system that was similar to Moscito and that could be played in ACBL-land. Posters (me included) were suggesting using things like 2C to show both majors, and 2M to offload some major/minor patterns and even preempting some of the club hands.

 

The solutions became quite silly imo. At some point the thread ended with no good answer.

 

The problem is that the ACBL prevents 1D and 1H from being used to show the most important suits (hearts and spades) and it's just very hard or impossible getting around that. Open those hands one step up and relays are much harder.

[nigel_k]

To be honest I think four card majors are at best a marginal gain even when you can relay at a low level. If you relay with 2♣ then there will always be an uncomfortably large number of shapes to deal with after a major suit opening and so you are better just playing five card majors and a nebulous diamond, e.g. the original symmetric 1♦ which is always a two or three suiter and open 2♣/2♦ with one suiters. It wouldn't be MOSCITO at all but would still be a decent system and the relays would work a lot better.

[rbforster]

The problem is that the ACBL prevents 1D and 1H from being used to show the most important suits (hearts and spades) and it's just very hard or impossible getting around that. Open those hands one step up and relays are much harder.

Under a reasonable reading of GCC, you can play 1♦ showing 4+ spades and 10+ points, and 1♥ as 4+ natural. Of course this doesn't give you a chance to use 1♠ for diamonds or other nice features, but you could try this:

 

1♦ "0+" 4♠ unbalanced canape or 4(441), 4S/5+m or 4S/5+H

1♥ 4+♥ unbalanced. Hearts and a minor, either longer, 1444, or 6+ single suited

1♠ 5+ standard

1N 12-14 balanced, includes 5H(332)

2♣ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major)

2♦ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major)

 

If 1♥ seems too overloaded here (I think it's manageable with KI and 1H-1S-1N showing 5H/4+m), you can remove the 6+ heart 1-suiters to 2♥.

[hrothgar]

Under a reasonable reading of GCC, you can play 1♦ showing 4+ spades and 10+ points, and 1♥ as 4+ natural. Of course this doesn't give you a chance to use 1♠ for diamonds or other nice features, but you could try this:

 

Sadly, the ACBL doesn't agree that "All purpose" = 4+ Spades

If if they did, you can't play 1S as 4+ Diamonds

[rbforster]

Sadly, the ACBL doesn't agree that "All purpose" = 4+ Spades

Sure they do, it just depends on how you ask them. Give them my opening bid structure and offer 1♦ as "0+ catchall, 10-14 points" and I'm sure they'll say it's legal. Don't ask questions you don't want the answers for and you'll be fine. That's really all I have to say about this, since we all know it's futile to expect either rational or consistent answers from the ACBL on matters of conventions. Play what you want and have your good excuses ready.

[hrothgar]

Sure they do, it just depends on how you ask them. Give them my opening bid structure and offer 1♦ as "0+ catchall, 10-14 points" and I'm sure they'll say it's legal. Don't ask questions you don't want the answers for and you'll be fine. That's really all I have to say about this, since we all know it's futile to expect either rational or consistent answers from the ACBL on matters of conventions. Play what you want and have your good excuses ready.

 

I prefer not to play rather than resort to cheating

 

And, no if, ands, or buts about it...

What you are describing is cheating

[rbforster]

And, no if, ands, or buts about it...

What you are describing is cheating

Tell me exactly how it is cheating if you submit your system to the ACBL and they say it is legal? I would argue that's the only definition of legal you should be certain of - not one based on your speculation, or my speculation, or that somebody's friend's aunt asked Memphis about something vaguely related and got some unclear answer that is tangentially related to this. Note that I didn't say not to disclose the details of the 1♦ shapes if asked by your opps.

[awm]

It's very annoying that the legality of a method depends on how that method is described to ACBL.

 

Given that this is the situation, I don't see why it's necessarily more or less valid to decide that "The method is legal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is legal" than to decide "The method is illegal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is illegal." In other words, in the unfortunately common situation where both the "it's allowed" and the "it's banned" emails exist, I wouldn't call choosing to play the method "cheating."

 

Of course, it seems that neither the authorizing nor the banning emails from ACBL are binding on regional tournament directors, who are free to make their own decisions based on their own interpretation of the regulations.

 

Anyway with all this as a long "aside", there is no reason to believe that a 1♠ opening showing anything but spades is ACBL-legal. So while you might be able to play 1♦ showing spades, it's not clear how this would help you since you can't play 1♠ showing diamonds.

[hrothgar]

Tell me exactly how it is cheating if you submit your system to the ACBL and they say it is legal? I would argue that's the only definition of legal you should be certain of - not one based on your speculation, or my speculation, or that somebody's friend's aunt asked Memphis about something vaguely related and got some unclear answer that is tangentially related to this. Note that I didn't say not to disclose the details of the 1♦ shapes if asked by your opps.

 

Members of this forum have specifically asked the ACBL whether an "all purpose" 1♦ opening can be used to show hands that promise 4+ Spades.

The ACBL has official responded that an all purpose 1D opening can't not be used in this manner.

 

You stated that players should

 

1. Ignore this specific ruling

2. Submit an alternative explanation of this methods that deliberately conceals salient information in the hopes that you'll be able to get a more favorable judgment

 

You are a cheat

[hrothgar]

 

Given that this is the situation, I don't see why it's necessarily more or less valid to decide that "The method is legal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is legal" than to decide "The method is illegal if there exists an email from ACBL stating it is illegal." In other words, in the unfortunately common situation where both the "it's allowed" and the "it's banned" emails exist, I wouldn't call choosing to play the method "cheating."

 

 

rbfoster is describing very different behavior

 

He is advocating a specific way to deal with a ruling you don't like

 

1. Ignore the ruling you don't like

2. Find a new/better way to describe your methods

3. Deliberately conceal salient information

4. Hope you get a conflicting opinion

 

I suspect that most of use would agree that the ACBL regulators are gross incompetent.

However, behavior like this only exacerbates an already bad situation.

 

I don't see anything wrong with trying to influence the regulatory body to reverse an opinion that you believe if flawed. However, that's very different than ignoring a decision you don't like and shopping around for a new one.

[straube]

Members of this forum have specifically asked the ACBL whether an "all purpose" 1♦ opening can be used to show hands that promise 4+ Spades.

The ACBL has official responded that an all purpose 1D opening can't not be used in this manner.

 

You stated that players should

 

1. Ignore this specific ruling

2. Submit an alternative explanation of this methods that deliberately conceals salient information in the hopes that you'll be able to get a more favorable judgment

 

You are a cheat

 

We had a very long thread about opening 1D to "show" four spades and I remember the conclusion being that one could as long as the other openings were all set up to specifically deny the patterns in question. Even Jan conceded the point (though she thought no one would want to play the convoluted openings that this required). I hope we don't hijack olien's thread on this.

[TimG]

We had a very long thread about opening 1D to "show" four spades and I remember the conclusion being that one could as long as the other openings were all set up to specifically deny the patterns in question. Even Jan conceded the point (though she thought no one would want to play the convoluted openings that this required). I hope we don't hijack olien's thread on this.

As Richard (or Adam) said, this is sort of a matter of who you ask, when you ask. I've asked those who should know -- I forget specifically who, but it was in the process of submitting methods to the C&C Committee for approval -- about using an "all-purpose" 1m opening to show a hand with exactly four spades and was told I could not do this. I've probably got the e-mail someplace, but am not going to bother digging for it right now because even if I produce it, someone is going to say the person who told me was wrong.

 

Is there one person, or body, that everyone here would consider an ultimate authority as far as ruling whether a method is GCC legal?

 

Edit: I found this brief exchange between myself and Rick Beye (who was at the time Chief Tournament Director):

1) The GCC allows an "all-purpose" 1D opening bid. In a GCC event, may I use a 1D opening to show hearts (and 10+ points)? Or, would this not qualify as a "all-purpose" use?

NO, that would not be 'all-purpose'.

[The giant text was Mr. Beye's choice.] Although I once did want to use 1♣ to show exactly four spades, I cannot be sure that I asked specifically about that rather than relying upon the above ruling to determine that it would not be permitted.

[mgoetze]

Is there one person, or body, that everyone here would consider an ultimate authority as far as ruling whether a method is GCC legal?

 

You have seriously misread the GCC if you think it was designed to allow for authoritative rulings on its content.

[blackshoe]

You have two ways in which you propose to describe this bid. You know that if you describe it one way, you will get an answer you don't want to hear. You also know that if you describe it the other way, two things will be true: you will get the answer you want to hear, and you will have left out an important part of the method (that your "0 or more diamonds, catchall" always includes 4 spades). What I want to know is how you can possibly consider this not cheating?

[shevek]

this is more or less what we play in America ....ACBL & EBU Scamp.zip

AmScamp summary.zip

[rbforster]

You have two ways in which you propose to describe this bid. You know that if you describe it one way, you will get an answer you don't want to hear. You also know that if you describe it the other way, two things will be true: you will get the answer you want to hear, and you will have left out an important part of the method (that your "0 or more diamonds, catchall" always includes 4 spades). What I want to know is how you can possibly consider this not cheating?

How exactly is it cheating if I ask the regulators a completely well posed question and they decide it's legal? Am I obligated to ask for clarification in a way that maximizes the chance I will be rejected? What about other players who haven't heard about some prior related email rejecting this treatment and ask my question innocently and are told they are allowed to play the methods - is if fair or rational that I should not be allowed to play the same system but they can? Perhaps more to the point - who says that if there are contradictory rulings on legality that one should err on the side of rejection? After all, if a regulator tells you it's ok, how can you reasonably say it's not ok? It's his job to think about negative inferences and whether such methods should be allowed, as I'm sure not everyone who asks about their pet method will give a full list of all possible shapes for each bid. It's called doing his job. As for "leaving out an important part of the method", do recall that negative inferences are not alertable (such as failure to support double) and this has been an established policy for some time now, so I'm not sure why you think I should be calling everyone's attention to it when even my opponents at the table aren't entitled to that protection by the rules.

 

Just to be clear, I am not proposing any non-disclosure to my table opponents, but merely that I should be able to ask any question I want in any way that I want of the regulators and that I should be able to rely on their answer. To have any other system of clarifying regulations makes no sense at all. Frankly I don't even know why people ask the regulators anything in the first place, since the legality of your methods are all up to the arbitrary ruling you'll get from your local director if someone complains.

[olien]

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