ACBL Legal MOSCITO

[straube]

ok. I'm hijacking, too.

 

So far I've read how the question is posed in one of two ways. The third way would be to explain all the openings, explain the inference of the 1D, and then asking for a ruling. If the ruling isn't favorable, then ask which of the other openings is illegal. Of course one has made sure in advance that the other openings are legal.

 

They can't prevent you from using legal openings. They can't argue that all purpose means every purpose...or you would only need one opening. Therefore, I'd argue that all purpose means that the bid is available for hands that don't fit other openings.

 

We really did hash this out. Does anyone else remember?

[mtvesuvius]

Really? Go to the Laws & Regulations if you want to discuss this, or find your own chat room, whatever. This is seriously getting ridiculous.

 

How about SOMEONE actually focuses on the actual question:

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

[the hog]

Really? Go to the Laws & Regulations if you want to discuss this, or find your own chat room, whatever. This is seriously getting ridiculous.

 

How about SOMEONE actually focuses on the actual question:

 

Since when have you become a moderator? The actual question was a foolish one in that the op supposedly asked about Moscito and then produced nothing like it.

[rbforster]

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)

Option #1 will have some rare but serious issues when responder over-competes at a high level and opener has only 4 trumps (but you play him for 5 since he usually has 5).

Option #2 will have more common but less serious competitive difficulties (since 1♦ is always ambiguous whenever it comes up), so you may not be able to compete to a minor partial as easily since it's more risky without knowing which minor opener has.

 

In short events esp MPs, I would play #1 and hope the relatively rare 4M hands doesn't come up or don't matter. I would want to be well placed for competitive auctions starting 1♦ instead of poorly placed (vs Option #2).

In long events esp IMPs, I'd have to worry a little more about which is "better on average," since 1♦ will come up a lot but may not cost many IMPs on average when it does.

 

I would generally lean to #2 since I think many opponents don't have a good defense to a 0+ 1D and opening this pretty light will give them more troubles since hopefully we'd be better prepared for the negative inferences, uncertainties, etc, than they would be.

[straube]

Really? Go to the Laws & Regulations if you want to discuss this, or find your own chat room, whatever. This is seriously getting ridiculous.

 

How about SOMEONE actually focuses on the actual question:

Address us nicely please. The issue of what 1D can mean has potential bearing on what your best options are for a Moscito type system. Also, at least a few of us have tried to be helpful.

 

It shouldn't be a surprise that I would pick the nebulous 1D option.

[rduran1216]

Address us nicely please. The issue of what 1D can mean has potential bearing on what your best options are for a Moscito type system. Also, at least a few of us have tried to be helpful.

 

It shouldn't be a surprise that I would pick the nebulous 1D option.

 

I realize that 90% of people who post on message boards are social losers. Add to that 90% of good bridge players are jackasses. But seriously, the trolling in this place is even worse than Sherdog. Stop bitching, stop playing semantics, and grow the fu*% up.

 

this is not solely directed at you, random person I have no problem with.

[hrothgar]

 

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?

 

No one ever accused the ACBL of being fair or rational.

 

With this said and done, there is a very important distinction between

 

1. An individual, with no knowledge of the ACBL's prior rulings, who happens to craft a less that perfectly precise description of their methods.

2. An individual who knows that the ACBL has banned the specific method and deliberately invents a new description that conceals critical information about the methods they are playing

 

I consider case 1 to be rub of the green. Its an unfortunately consequence of the poor "state of the art" here in North America.

 

The second example is clearly cheating.

[TimG]

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.

I disagree that it is the regulators' job to dissect methods to determine all inferences, positive and negative. Your arguments about other players not being totally forthcoming mean nothing to me, their doing it does not make it right for others.

 

To me, what you suggest is akin to using an illegal piece of equipment in a sporting event and thinking: so long as the ref doesn't notice, I've done nothing wrong.

[hrothgar]

 

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

 

My (biased) preference would be to go with option number 1:

 

I really dislike nebulous diamond systems.

When partner open's 1♦, I like to be able to raise in Diamonds.

 

I also like 4 card major opening styles, so I don't see much downside in a style in which 1M can include a 4 card suit.

 

I don't claim that this opinion is in any way scientific...

[shevek]

Say we want to play a strong club system in America, in which

1♣ = 15+

1♦ = 4+♠s

1♥ = 4+♥s, denies 4♠s

1♠ = 5+♠s

1NT = 11-14 no major

2♣/♦ = natural, no major

 

as suggested by some. Of course you can't relay over 1♦/♥/♠ but that's another issue.

 

Now throw a small number of the shapely hands with 7 diamonds in 1♦. This is bad because you will have to rip partner's raise but playable. Maybe add a specific hand with 3 spades, say 3-1-5+4.

Will this pass as a catch all?

 

At the table, you will carefully explain it as "10-14, often with 4 spades, denies 4 hearts"

[olien]

money!

 

1♦ = 10-14 4♠ <4♥ OR any hand with 8+♦

[olien]

So, we made a slight change and tried it out tonight. However, it didn't come up, and so we have no idea if it's better or worse. We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor :P (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it) The opening structure we're trying now is:

 

1♣ 15+ HCP any dist

1♦ 10-14 HCP 4+♦ not balanced, may have MUCH longer ♣

1♥ 10-14 HCP, 5+♥ unless 4♥-5♣ or 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5

1♠ 10-14 HCP, always 5+♠

1NT 12-14 HCP balanced, most balanced dist. allowed

2♣ 10-14 HCP, 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4+♠, denies 4-card ♦

2♦ weak 2 in a major

2♥ weak, 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 majors

2♠ any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt

2NT weak 6/5+ majors (any better recommendations would be welcome

3♣ weak 5/5+ minors

3♦ sound preempt

3M standard preempt

 

 

After 1♣ opening, we use the "new" 1♣ structure (1♦ positive, 1♠ double neg, etc)

 

After 1♦ opening, we use 1NT as the GF relay, 1M natural F1, 2m natural NF

 

After 1♥ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (is 1NT better?), 2NT as INV raise

 

After 1♠ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (again, would 1NT be preferred?), 2NT as INV raise

 

After 2♣ opening, 2♦ is the INV+ relay, and the continuations are as below:

...2♥=1-suited, now 2♠=GF relay, 2NT/3♣=INV

...2♠=5+♣ 4+♠, now 2NT=GF relay, 3♣/3♠=INV

...2NT/3♣=minimum hands with 4+♥

...3♦+=maximum hands with 4+♥

 

Dunno if this is much better, moving the "problem" to 2♣, but we're more likely to want to compete when our suit is ♠, but if our suit is ♣, the opponents may be able to out-compete us anyways.

 

Input would be welcome. Thanks

[mgoetze]

2♦ weak 2 in a major

2♥ weak, 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 majors

2♠ any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt

2NT weak 6/5+ majors (any better recommendations would be welcome

3♣ weak 5/5+ minors

3♦ sound preempt

3M standard preempt

 

Personally I would move the club-or-diamond-preempt to 2NT, play 2♠ as spades and a minor, and divvy up the 65+ majors openings amongst 2♥, 1M and 4M.

[straube]

So, we made a slight change and tried it out tonight. However, it didn't come up, and so we have no idea if it's better or worse. We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor :P (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it) The opening structure we're trying now is:

 

1♣ 15+ HCP any dist

1♦ 10-14 HCP 4+♦ not balanced, may have MUCH longer ♣

1♥ 10-14 HCP, 5+♥ unless 4♥-5♣ or 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5

1♠ 10-14 HCP, always 5+♠

1NT 12-14 HCP balanced, most balanced dist. allowed

2♣ 10-14 HCP, 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4+♠, denies 4-card ♦

2♦ weak 2 in a major

2♥ weak, 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 majors

2♠ any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt

2NT weak 6/5+ majors (any better recommendations would be welcome

3♣ weak 5/5+ minors

3♦ sound preempt

3M standard preempt

 

 

After 1♣ opening, we use the "new" 1♣ structure (1♦ positive, 1♠ double neg, etc)

 

After 1♦ opening, we use 1NT as the GF relay, 1M natural F1, 2m natural NF

 

After 1♥ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (is 1NT better?), 2NT as INV raise

 

After 1♠ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (again, would 1NT be preferred?), 2NT as INV raise

 

After 2♣ opening, 2♦ is the INV+ relay, and the continuations are as below:

...2♥=1-suited, now 2♠=GF relay, 2NT/3♣=INV

...2♠=5+♣ 4+♠, now 2NT=GF relay, 3♣/3♠=INV

...2NT/3♣=minimum hands with 4+♥

...3♦+=maximum hands with 4+♥

 

Dunno if this is much better, moving the "problem" to 2♣, but we're more likely to want to compete when our suit is ♠, but if our suit is ♣, the opponents may be able to out-compete us anyways.

 

Input would be welcome. Thanks

 

Seems pretty good. Haven't done the math yet. 1H has too many hand types to relay with 2C and using 1N to relay will leave you stitched when you have a constructive response with no fit and no spades. Still think 1D is underutilized, but that's a tradeoff you've decided to make. I keep wondering if you'd do better with a 1D opening that promised only three diamonds (and a distributional hand). I'd rather open 1D than 2C with KQxx x Axx Qxxxx

 

What does 1D-1M, 2C show in terms of respective minor suit length? How about 1H-1X, 2C?

Would you consider giving up 2H to show 5H/4C?

[Free]

We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor :P (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it)

May I suggest an alternative name, just so you don't confuse everyone with what MOSCITO really is? I suggest mOSCNITO: minor Oriented Strong Club, Not In Transfer Opening (this is not a type, minors aren't written with a capital letter).

 

Otherwise I guess we're going to have to start playing OLIEN-two's (Only Losers Ignore Established Naming conventions). It's valid only when V and described as 2X = 0-5HCP with any 4333 with exactly 3X, so the 4 card suit is unknown. I'll even advocate the name, so everyone will put the link between you and this ridiculous system. Hell, perhaps I'll even write an article on my blog about it. :P

[gwnn]

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.

(emphasis mine) Do you really think describing an opening which shows 4+ spades as "0+ diamonds" can be done innocently?

[Free]

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'm a bit late but this is blatant cheating. The fact that you don't even want to admit this, and still don't see a problem with it makes it even worse. You completely ignore the concept of full disclosure. And what makes you think that with approval of "1♦ = 0+ catchall, 10-14 points" you'll be allowed to play "1♦ = 0+D, 4+♠, 10-14 points"? You don't open any hand with 1♦ anymore, which makes it no longer a catchall. It's a completely different opening, and people will defend completely different against it as well.

[the hog]

However, it didn't come up, and so we have no idea if it's better or worse. We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor :P (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it).

 

Well if you did this in a serious competition against me, I would have the director at the table so fast your ears would spin and your glasses would fall off.

You announce Moscito and I automatically assume 4 card Majors, often canape, because that is what Moscito is, and I don't ask alerts because you probably don't know your system. As a matter of fact, I would go further and accuse you of cheating by deliberately attempting to mislead your opponents. And yes, you are a blatant cheat in doing this!

 

I had a similar situation when I played against an international a few years ago who announced "Polish Club". It turns out 1C was always 16+ and there were many differences. They were fined just as you would be.

[olien]

Seems pretty good. Haven't done the math yet. 1H has too many hand types to relay with 2C and using 1N to relay will leave you stitched when you have a constructive response with no fit and no spades. Still think 1D is underutilized, but that's a tradeoff you've decided to make. I keep wondering if you'd do better with a 1D opening that promised only three diamonds (and a distributional hand). I'd rather open 1D than 2C with KQxx x Axx Qxxxx

 

What does 1D-1M, 2C show in terms of respective minor suit length? How about 1H-1X, 2C?

Would you consider giving up 2H to show 5H/4C?

 

 

We actually have enough room after 1♥-2♣ to relay out all of the hand types, but its pretty cramped:

 

1♥-2♣:

2♦ = 4+♥ 4+♣ or 3-suited

2♥ = 6+♥

2♠ = 5+♥ 4♦

2NT = 5+♥ 5+♦

3♣+ = 5+♥ 4(+)♠ (5-6s end up at 4♣, don't get to show 4-7s since no 5-5 step)

 

After 1♥-2♣// 2♦-2♥:

2♠ = 5+♥ 4♣

2NT = 5+♥ 5+♣

3♣ = 4♥-5♣ (either 3415/1435/2425)

3♦ = 4414 or 4405

3♥+ = 5♥(440)

 

Also, wasn't there an earlier thread regarding 1♥-1♠ being like a forcing NT w/o 5♠, and 1♥-2m showing various ♠ hands? Then using 1♥-1NT as an artificial GF is more playable.

 

FYI, its also cramped after 1♠-2♣ and here is the structure below:

 

1♠-2♣:

2♦ = 5+♠ 4+♣ or 5+♠ 5+♥ or 5(440)

2♥ = 6+♠

2♠ = 5+♠ 4♦

2NT = 5+♠ 5+♦

3♣+ = 5+♠ 4♥

 

After 1♠-2♣// 2♦-2♥:

2♠ = 5+♠ 4♣

2NT = 5+♠ 5+♣

3♣ = 5(440)

3♦+ = 5+♠ 5+♥

 

But I think here, using 1NT as the GFR is not as playable as it is over 1♥, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know if giving up the ability to have easier constructive auctions is worth the extra step(s) that we gain by using 1NT as the GFR.

 

Regarding making 1♦ as 3+ and unbalanced is an idea we've considered, but doing so would only affect two distributions: 1435/4135 and makes the gain minimal. With the former we open 1♥ and with the latter 2♣. 1♦ may be under-utilized, but we feel it leaves us better placed in competitive sequences. As for relative minor suit lengths: 1♦-1M// 1NT=4♦ 5+♣ (may be maximum 4-6 planning to continue with 3♣ and 1♦-1M// 2♣=5+♦ 4+♣

 

Regarding The Hog's comment about how he assumed that saying MOSCITO meant 4-card majors often canapé, this is all I've to say:

 

Opponents come to the table, announce that they're playing precision. First hand out auction goes (1♣)-P-(1♥) (alerted of course) to you. Do you assume that 1♥ shows 5+♥ 8+ pts, even though there are many variations on what this can mean based on partnership agreement. So you don't ask. It turns out 1♥ showed 5+♠ or 11-13 balanced, do you scream murder because you assumed that this showed ♥s because that was what it meant in the original precision? Or better yet, the first time you came up against a MOSCITO pair that had started opening in the 6-card minor instead of the 4-card major, and you overcalled their 4-card major and either got burned or misplayed the hand because they "couldn't" have a decent 4-card major because in the original system they would've opened the major. Did you go running to the police then?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that many partnerships adopt a system, and then adjust it to their personal style. The reason we called this "moscito" is because we started out with the basic system, and changed it to our liking, just like many pairs do playing precision, or even 2/1...we just didn't feel like changing the name. We did make one "small" change and started calling it LIAR MOSCITO (Legal In America Relays MOSCITO)...but don't know if this is enough of a change to appease you

[Cascade]

 

The point I'm trying to make is that many partnerships adopt a system, and then adjust it to their personal style. The reason we called this "moscito" is because we started out with the basic system, and changed it to our liking, just like many pairs do playing precision, or even 2/1...we just didn't feel like changing the name. We did make one "small" change and started calling it LIAR MOSCITO (Legal In America Relays MOSCITO)...but don't know if this is enough of a change to appease you

 

I imagine if I played two under transfers with mostly non-forcing change of suits something like:

 

1♣ = hearts

1♦ = spades

1♥ = clubs

1♠ = diamonds

 

and called my system "2/1" that you wouldn't accept your argument.

 

I like the "LIAR" bit but what you play bears very little resemblance to MOSCITO.

[Crunch3nt]

oops

[hrothgar]

 

Regarding The Hog's comment about how he assumed that saying MOSCITO meant 4-card majors often canapé, this is all I've to say:

 

Opponents come to the table, announce that they're playing precision. First hand out auction goes (1♣)-P-(1♥) (alerted of course) to you. Do you assume that 1♥ shows 5+♥ 8+ pts, even though there are many variations on what this can mean based on partnership agreement. So you don't ask. It turns out 1♥ showed 5+♠ or 11-13 balanced, do you scream murder because you assumed that this showed ♥s because that was what it meant in the original precision? Or better yet, the first time you came up against a MOSCITO pair that had started opening in the 6-card minor instead of the 4-card major, and you overcalled their 4-card major and either got burned or misplayed the hand because they "couldn't" have a decent 4-card major because in the original system they would've opened the major. Did you go running to the police then?

 

The point I'm trying to make is that many partnerships adopt a system, and then adjust it to their personal style. The reason we called this "moscito" is because we started out with the basic system, and changed it to our liking, just like many pairs do playing precision, or even 2/1...we just didn't feel like changing the name. We did make one "small" change and started calling it LIAR MOSCITO (Legal In America Relays MOSCITO)...but don't know if this is enough of a change to appease you

 

In what way shape or form does the expression "MOSCITO" facilitate communication?

 

The system that you are describing bears little/no relationship to MOSCITO.

You're only going to confuse people who actually know/play the system in question.

 

Moreover, you are going to run into issues with accusations regarding your ethics because you aren't accurately describing your methods.

 

Using the expression MOSCITO has a lot of costs.

I don't perceive any actual benefits.

 

So, why do it?

[olien]

Ok, what do you suggest we call it? "Modified Precision" seems like a misnomer because it doesn't use 5-card majors, and our 1♣ structure is not anything close a "normal" precision 1♣ opener, and we use relays over all of our openers, and don't use a precision 2♦ opener. Also, our 1♣ is weaker than a normal precision 1♣ opener, and our other openers DENY having a balanced hand. So, what would you suggest we call it?

[matmat]

I've resisted for a while, but finally, can't really help it. Every time I see this topic bumped I can't help but think of the classic tune "Ne me moleste mosquito."

[olien]

LOL Mateusz :D very nice.