Defense against Moscito

[32519]

Using BBOs deal generator with South as the dealer and the following constraints –

Hand Type 1: 4+ ♥, minor suits = 0-5 cards, 9-14 HCP

Hand Type 2: 4+ ♠, minor suits = 0-5 cards, 9-14 HCP

(No constraints were placed on the other 3 hands)

I then started dealing random hands to see what was spat out.

 

This is the defence to MOSCITO I came up with based on the hands that were dealt:

 

Over a 1♥ opening (unbalanced = 9-14 HCP, balanced = 11-12 HCP, 4+ ♠)

• X = 3-suited takeout of ♠, or single suited hand with values not fitting in anywhere else

• 1♠ = 4+♠/5+♥, 0-10 HCP, frequency = 2.06%

• 1NT = balanced, 15-18 HCP, frequency = 6.91%

• 2♣ = artificial, any balanced/semi-balanced hand, 11-14 HCP, frequency = 14.07%

• 2♦ = any 2-suited hand that can compete to the 3-level, the lower the HCP count then the more extreme the distribution, a 5+ card ♠ suit possible as 1 of the 2 suits, 0-31 HCP, frequency = 5.64%

• 2♥ = 4+♠/5+♥, 11-31 HCP (rule of 20), frequency = 1.61%

• 2♠ = 5+♠/5+♥, 10-31 HCP (rule of 20), frequency = 0.50%

• 2NT = 5/5 minors, 11-31 HCP, frequency = 0.41%

• 3♣ etc are all normal pre-empts, 7-card suit etc depending on level of preempt

 

Over a 1♦ opening (unbalanced = 9-14 HCP, balanced = 13-14 HCP, 4+ ♥)

• X = 3-suited takeout of ♥, or single suited hand with values not fitting in anywhere else

• 1♥ = 5+♠/4+♥, 0-10 HCP, frequency = 2.06%

• 1♠ = Natural, 5+ card suit, 9-14 HCP, frequency = 8.63%

• 1NT = balanced, 15-18 HCP, frequency = 6.91%

• 2♣ = artificial, any balanced/semi-balanced hand, 11-14 HCP, frequency = 14.07%

• 2♦ = any 2-suited hand that can compete to the 3-level, the lower the HCP count then the more extreme the distribution, a 5+ card ♥ suit possible as 1 of the 2 suits, 0-31 HCP, frequency = 5.64%

• 2♥ = 4+♥/5+♠, 11-31 HCP (rule of 20), frequency = 1.61%

• 2♠ = 5+♠/5+♥, 10-31 HCP (rule of 20), frequency = 0.50%

• 2NT = 5/5 minors, 11-31 HCP, frequency = 0.41%

• 3♣ etc are all normal pre-empts, 7-card suit etc depending on level of preempt

 

Here are some example hands and auctions which were dealt:

 

3-Suited Takeout

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt87hk72d42ca985&w=s3haj94dk873cq762&n=s652hqdaqjt96ckt4&e=sakj94ht8653d5cj3&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h(4+%20Spades)d(3-suited%20t/o)3d(Constructive%20preemp)3h(To%20play)p]399|300[/hv]

 

4♠-5♥ 0-10 HCP

[hv=pc=n&s=sa974h5dkj53cqjt3&w=sqt32ht9762dq9ck8&n=s6hkq4d87642ca542&e=skj85haj83datc976&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h(4+%20Spades)1s(4XS-5XH%200-10%20HCP)]399|300[/hv]

Without being able to see all four hands, what does North do now?

 

5♠ 9-14 HCP (equivalent to MOSCITO's opening requirements)

[hv=pc=n&s=s98haqt972dj9cat2&w=sq7632hk8da764ck4&n=skjthj654d852c976&e=sa54h3dkqt3cqj853&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d(4+%20Hearts)1s(Natural%2C%205-card%20suit)3h(Constructive%20preemp)3s(To%20play)]399|300[/hv]

 

Balanced / Semi-balanced, 11-14 HCP

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4haj953dk62c765&w=sat83hq8dqjt9ckq8&n=sk75hkt4da53cjt93&e=sj962h762d874ca42&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d(4+%20Hearts)2c(Balanced%2011-14%20HCP)2h(To%20play)2s(To%20play)]399|300[/hv]

South can bid on to 3♥ on a known 8-card fit. 3♥ fails by 1.

 

Any 2-Suited Hand

[hv=pc=n&s=skq864h872dakq2ct&w=s7hakq93dj8cqj965&n=sj932ht5d7643ca84&e=sat5hj64dt95ck732&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h(4+%20Spades)2d(Any%202-suiter)3s(Constructive%20preemp)p4s4n(Looking%20for%20sacrifice)d5cdppp]399|300[/hv]

5♣X fails by 1, where 4♠ makes

 

5♠-4♥ 11+ HCP (Rule of 20)

[hv=pc=n&s=s9764hak52dt4ck73&w=sakjt3hqt64dk83ct&n=sq5h873dqj92cj964&e=s82hj9da765caq852&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d(4+%20Hearts)2h(4H-5S%2011+%20HCP)d]399|300[/hv]

Seeing all four hands, on the lie of the cards 3NT and 4S both make if East drops the ♠Q. The most likely contract will be 3NT.

 

5♠-5♥ 10+ HCP (Rule of 20)

[hv=pc=n&s=skj974h65dk4ck832&w=sat865hak732dt9c9&n=shqj4daq852cqt764&e=sq32ht98dj763caj5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h(4+%20Spades)2s(5XS-5XH%2010+%20HCP)3d3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

These were some example hands and auctions which came up. For sure this bidding style has its downsides as well, most notably when the opponents have a fit and the balance of the HCP. It then becomes easy to pick off the overcaller. But that is bridge; you win some and you lose some. This defence is an attempt to "get-in-the-face" of MOSCITO players intent on jamming the auction.

 

This poster is requesting those who regularly play against MOSCITO to give this defence a shot and then come and post some of the hands in this thread. Not only your gains, but your losses as well. Together we can try and develop a more “in-your-face” defence.

 

Thanking you in advance.

[hrothgar]

If the ACBL (or any other committee) asked me to submit a suggested defence to MOSCITO, I would have done the same. Submit a defence which on face value is both, credible and workable, yet will not hamper my side from jamming the auction.

 

Don’t you dare project your own ethical failures onto me. When I submit defenses to the ACBL, I try my best to provide effective methods that I myself would use at the table. So excuse me that I am more than a little upset that some(one) whose own suggested defenses are laughably incompetent accuses me of

 

1. Developing a bad defense

2. Doing so in a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage at the table

 

There are plenty of grounds to critique the methods that I suggest (the primary one being that methods like Raptor and Power Doubles are unfamiliar to many players). However, I stand by my assertion that the methods that I am recommending are orders of magnitude more effective than the dreck that you are suggestion.

 

All of the experienced MOSCITO players posting in this thread consider your defense laughable. Perhaps you should use this opportunity to re-evaluate your qualifications as a system designer.

 

Here’s a bit of practical advice: Your defense seems to pre suppose that our major suit openings are somehow going to steal your 4M contracts. In particular, that we’re going to pick off your suit by opening in it. Practically speaking, this doesn’t happen. Most people are good at ferreting out their 4M contracts. MOSCITO sometimes finds a good sacrifice that the field doesn’t. Conversely, a 5 card major style sometimes finds a good sac or pressure bid that we don’t.

 

Where MOSCITO shines is part score contracts. Particularly situations where your side needs to decide between selling out to 2M or competing to the three level.

 

There are three ways that you can create problems for us if we want to play in 2M. I’d prioritize things as follows:

 

1. You can provide your partner with information that will let partner make a better informed decision regarding whether to compete beyond 2M
2. You can preempt the bidding by bidding past 2M (and hopefully rack up a better score)
3. In theory, you can adopted competitive methods designed to deter us from bidding 2M (this one is pretty hard)

 

Your original defense fails on all three counts.

 

• • You devote so many bids trying to determine whether we’ve stolen your major that you cripple your competitive bidding
• • Your high level preempts are rare, and I’d argue that the methods aren’t conducive to a positive expected value
• • If anything, your methods make me more eager to bid 2M on a bad three bagger since I know that I don’t have to worry about a bunch of bad trump splits and I know that your initial pass is badly overloaded.

Edited September 1, 2012 by inquiry
removed impolite reference

[hrothgar]

With respect to the hands that you provide:

 

Hands 1, 4, 6, and 7 aren't openers.

There are all systemic passes which suggests that your Monte Carlo simulation is biased.

 

At one point in time, I posted fairly complete Dealer scripts to simulate MOSCITO.

You might want to look for them rather than reinventing the wheel.

 

On hand two, North would probably start with a negative double, showing both minors. 1NT is also a reasonable call.

 

On hand three, East is sitting on a good 12 count with a stiff in the opponent's suit.

How can he possibly stop short of game?

[hrothgar]

For kicks and giggles I ran a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the frequency of some of your recommended methods after a 1H opening

 

Here are the frequencies I arrived at

 

X = 1.8%

2H = 1.0%

2S = .2%

 

I am attaching the script

 

------------------

 

######### Definition - Opening Points

 

# 11 is the index for c13

# This function allows the user to define valuations for cacluating HCP

# Most hand evaluation is performed used a modified version of the

# 4 Aces Point Count.(Ace = 3, King = 2, ...)

# All values are multiplied by 100 to avoid fractions

 

#altcount 11 300 200 100 50 20

 

############## STRONG OPENINGS

 

one_club =

 

(

hcp(north)>=17

#or

#c13(north) >=1000

or

(hcp(north)>=15 and cccc(north)>=1600)

or

(hcp(north)==14 and cccc(north)>=1900)

or

(hcp(north)==13 and cccc(north)>=2000)

or

 

(

hcp(north)>=15 and shape(north, any 4333 + any 4432 + any 5332 + any 5422)

#and

#c13(north) >= 900

)

 

)

 

#####

#Opening strength defines the minimum strength for a limited opening bid

#####

 

opening_strength =

(

(

cccc(north) - 25 * shape(north, any 4441 + any 5440) >= 1050

 

or hcp(north) >= 11

)

 

# and

# c13(north) >= 600

)

 

and not

 

one_club

 

#MOSCITO Opening structure

 

#################### SINGLE SUITED PREEMPTS

#################### MAJORS

 

four_diamonds =

 

(

(

spades(north) >= 8 and

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 2

)

 

or

 

(

spades(north) == 7 and

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) + hascard(north,QS) == 3

)

)

 

and

 

hascard(north,AC) + hascard(north,KC) +

hascard(north,AD) + hascard(north,KD) +

hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) <=1

 

four_spades =

 

hcp(north) <= 9

 

and

 

(

(

spades(north) >= 7 and

 

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) +

hascard(north,QS) + hascard(north, JS) >= 3

)

 

or

 

spades(north) >= 8

)

 

and not four_diamonds

 

three_spades =

 

spades(north) >= 6

 

and

 

(

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) +

hascard(north, QS) + hascard(north, JS) >= 2

)

 

and

 

(

hearts(north) <=1 or

diamonds(north) <=1 or

clubs(north) <= 1

)

 

and

 

hcp(north) <= 9

 

and not four_diamonds

 

and not four_spades

 

four_clubs =

 

(

(

hearts(north) >= 8 and

hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) == 2

)

or

 

(

hearts(north) == 7 and

hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) + hascard(north,QH) == 3

)

)

 

and

 

hascard(north,AC) + hascard(north,KC) +

hascard(north,AD) + hascard(north,KD) +

hascard(north,AS) + hascard(north,KS) <=1

 

four_hearts =

 

hcp(north) <= 9

 

and

 

(

(

hearts(north) >= 7 and

 

hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +

hascard(north,QH) + hascard(north, JH) >= 3

)

 

or

 

spades(north) >= 8

)

 

and not four_clubs

 

three_hearts =

 

hearts(north) >= 6

 

and

 

(

hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +

hascard(north, QH) + hascard(north, JH) >= 2

)

 

and

 

(

spades(north) <=1 or

diamonds(north) <=1 or

clubs(north) <= 1

)

 

and

 

hcp(north) <= 9

 

and not four_clubs

 

and not four_hearts

 

############## MINORS

 

three_nt =

 

hcp(north) <= 9

 

and

 

(

(

clubs(north) >= 8

and

hascard(north,AS) + hascard(north,KS) +

hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) +

hascard(north,AD) + hascard(north,KD) <= 1

)

 

or

 

(

diamonds(north) >= 8

and

hascard(north,AS) + hascard(north,KS) +

hascard(north,AH) + hascard(north,KH) +

hascard(north,AC) + hascard(north,KC) <= 1

)

)

 

three_clubs =

 

clubs(north) >= 6

 

and

 

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) + hascard(north, QC) == 2 and

 

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) +

hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0 and

 

hcp(north) <=9

 

and not three_nt

 

three_diamonds =

 

diamonds(north) >= 6

 

and

 

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) + hascard(north, QD) == 2 and

 

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) +

hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0 and

 

hcp(north) <=9

 

and not three_nt

 

two_nt =

 

(clubs(north) >=6 and

 

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) + hascard(north, QC) +

hascard(north, JC) == 2

 

and

 

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) +

hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0

 

and

 

hascard(north, QD) + hascard(north, QH) + hascard(north, QS) <= 1

 

and

 

not three_clubs)

 

or

 

(

diamonds(north) >=6 and

 

hascard(north, AD) + hascard(north, KD) + hascard(north, QD) +

hascard(north, JD) == 2

 

and

 

hascard(north, AC) + hascard(north, KC) +

hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) +

hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) == 0 and

hascard(north, QC) + hascard(north, QH) + hascard(north, QS) <= 1 and

not three_diamonds

)

and not three_nt

 

preempts =

four_spades or

four_clubs or

three_spades or

four_hearts or

four_clubs or

three_hearts or

three_diamonds or

three_clubs or

three_nt or

two_nt

 

###############################

## Weak Opening Bids

###############################

 

two_diamonds =

 

not opening_strength and

hcp(north) <= 12

 

#and c13(north) >= 325

 

and

 

shape(north, any 4432, any 54xx, any 55xx, any 65xx) and

clubs(north) <= 3 and

diamonds(north) >=4

 

two_hearts =

 

not opening_strength and

hcp(north) <= 12 and

 

#c13(north) >= 325 and

 

shape(north, any 4432, any 54xx, any 55xx, any 65xx) and

hearts(north) >= 4 and

 

(

spades(north) >= 4 or

clubs(north) >= 5

)

 

two_spades =

 

not opening_strength and

hcp(north) <= 12 and

 

#c13(north) >= 325

 

(

(

shape(north, any 6322, any 6331, any 7222) and

spades(north) >=6

)

 

or

 

(

spades(north) >=4 and clubs(north) >=5

and hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) + hascard(north, QS) >= 1

)

)

 

############## LIMITED OPENINGS

 

##### Pre-Definitions

 

bad_spades = hascard(north, AS) + hascard(north, KS) + hascard(north,QS) == 0

bad_hearts = hascard(north, AH) + hascard(north, KH) + hascard(north,QH) == 0

balanced = shape(north, any 4432, any 5332, any 4333)

 

########

 

two_clubs =

opening_strength

and not preempts

 

and

 

(

 

(

clubs(north) >= 6 and

spades(north) < 4 and

hearts(north) < 3

)

 

or

 

(

clubs(north) >= 6 and

spades(north) == 4 and

bad_spades

)

 

or

 

(

clubs(north) >= 6 and

hearts(north) == 4 and

bad_hearts

)

 

)

 

one_notrump =

 

opening_strength and

 

(

 

(

balanced and not

shape(north, 5xxx, x5xx, 44xx, 4x4x, 4xx4, x44x, x4x4)

)

 

or

 

(

hearts(north) == 4 and

balanced and

(hcp(north) == 11 or hcp(north) == 12)

)

 

or

 

(

spades(north) == 4 and

balanced and

hearts(north) <= 3 and

(hcp(north) == 13 or hcp(north) == 14)

)

 

)

 

one_spade =

opening_strength

and not preempts

and not one_notrump

 

and

 

diamonds(north) >= 4 and

not one_notrump and

hearts(north) <4 and

spades(north) <4

 

or

 

(

 

diamonds(north) >=6 and

 

(

(spades(north) == 4 and bad_spades) or

(hearts(north) == 4 and bad_hearts)

)

 

)

 

one_heart =

 

opening_strength and

not two_clubs and

not one_notrump and

not one_spade and

 

(

 

(

spades(north) == 4 and

spades(north) > hearts(north)

)

 

or

 

(

spades(north) >= 5 and

spades(north) >= hearts(north)

)

 

)

 

one_diamond =

 

opening_strength and

not two_clubs and

not one_notrump and

not one_spade and

not one_heart

 

and

 

hearts(north) >= 4

 

and not

 

(balanced and hcp(north) <= 11)

 

 

##########

 

condition

 

one_heart

 

action

 

average spades(east) >= 4 and hearts(east) >=5 and hcp(east) <= 10,

average spades(east) == 4 and hearts(east) >=5 and hcp(east) >= 11,

average spades(east) >=5 and hearts(east) >=5 and hcp(east) >= 11

[hrothgar]

Last but not least, your new improved defense means that you can't show clubs OR diamonds below the three level.

 

Instead, you gave gained the dubious advantage of overcalling 2♣ on a balanced 11-14 HCP.

Even halfway decent pairs are going to eat you alive...

[the hog]

MOSCITO is an acronym for Major Oriented Strong Club - In Trouble Often

 

In its current incarnation, MOSCITO is defined by:

1. A strong club opening

2. Light and limited constructive opening bids

3. A "Majors First" opening style

4. Frequent use of relays with strong hands

5. Transfer openings

 

Light /Limited Openings: The MOSCITO opening structure was designed to support a highly aggressive "quick-in / quick-out" auction style.

 

MOSCITO's "constructive" opening bids typically promise approximately 9-14 HCPs

 

Major's First Openings: MOSCITO uses a Major's First bidding style. Opener is expected to show a four card major in preference to a longer minor. MOSCITO advocates a Major's First style for several reasons:

1. The Major's First bidding style facilitates quick and non-descriptive auctions to major suit contracts

2. Major's First bidding is more preemptive and often prevents opponents from making "cheap" 1 level overcalls

3. Major's First bidding improves system accuracy during competitive bidding sequences

 

With "Majors First Openings" in MOSCITO, the DOOM(ed) defense was designed to upset the Light/Limited Openings at the earliest option.

 

I suspect that Richard and I know what Moscito is. I was one of the first people to adopt it after Marston Burgess started playing it after Fp had been legislated out of existence. Richard has played it almost as long. I was more polit than Richard, but he is correct. You have no idea whatsoever and this defence is absolute crap.

Your bids are rare; they have the destructive effect of a rabid maggot. Anyway, there is a strong argument that defences against moscito should be constructive and not destructive.

Your suggestion that Richard is providing inadequate defences is insulting, however he is capable of speaking for himself.

However your pathetic defences of this defence show that you are clueless when it comes to bidding against LOBs and big Club. To quote Papa the Greek, Your example hands "show you have as much understanding as the man in the moon."

[32519]

Last but not least, your new improved defense means that you can't show clubs OR diamonds below the three level.

 

Instead, you gave gained the dubious advantage of overcalling 2♣ on a balanced 11-14 HCP.

Even halfway decent pairs are going to eat you alive...

 

Seems like you never read my full post.

 

Over a 1♥ opening (unbalanced = 9-14 HCP, balanced = 11-12 HCP, 4+ ♠)

• X = 3-suited takeout of ♠, or single suited hand with values not fitting in anywhere else

 

Over a 1♦ opening (unbalanced = 9-14 HCP, balanced = 13-14 HCP, 4+ ♥)

• X = 3-suited takeout of ♥, or single suited hand with values not fitting in anywhere else

 

Quote:

So I set up BBO’s deal generator again with the constraints already mentioned. On the third deal the hand below came up which typically falls into the above definition.

 

Before considering what North may actually bid on the hand, partner is expected to reply similar to any t/o X –

1. Any non-jump bid showing 0-8 HCP

2. A jump bid showing 9-11 HCP

3. 1NT showing 6-10 HCP

4. A cue-bid of the oppositions suit as game forcing

5. etc

 

East would therefore respond 1♠ to the t/o X (0-8 HCP). Now West will show the single suited hand in ♣.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat2hkqt52da943c9&w=sq4ha7d86caqjt765&n=sj853hj8dkjt2c842&e=sk976h9643dq75ck3&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d(4+%20Hearts)d(3%20suit%20or%201%20suit%20t/o%20X)p1s(0-8%20HCP)2h3cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The t/o X in my scheme allows more hand types. I'm just waiting for Glen and some other posters to get involved here as well and before long MOSCITO's gain when the auction can be jammed will be eaten away.

[32519]

Where MOSCITO shines is part score contracts. Particularly situations where your side needs to decide between selling out to 2M or competing to the three level.

 

There are three ways that you can create problems for us if we want to play in 2M. I’d prioritize things as follows:

 

1. 
    
   
2. You can provide your partner with information that will let partner make a better informed decision regarding whether to compete beyond 2M
   
3. You can preempt the bidding by bidding past 2M (and hopefully rack up a better score)
   
4. In theory, you can adopted competitive methods designed to deter us from bidding 2M (this one is pretty hard)
   

 

Your original defense...

 

Quote: In theory, you can adopted [sic] competitive methods designed to deter us from bidding 2M (this one is pretty hard)

 

This is exactly what I’m trying to address; developing a more “in-your-face” defence transferring the pressure back onto the MOSCITO pair. My 2♥ and 2♠ bids showing a 5/4 or 5/5 hand plus values, not only tells my partner my hand pattern, it also enables an easy cross-ruff situation when partner has a fit with the 5-card suit and an appropriate hand. More often partner will be declarer. Partner’s RHO will most likely also be short in the suit opened. Any ruff can be over-ruffed.

 

Quote: “Your original defence...”

 

The original defence has already been canned (although some of the ideas were borrowed on and reinvented), so going there gains nothing.

 

If a more aggressive “in-your-face” defence to MOSCITO is developed which sees more and more of your gains from jamming the auction whittled away, I’m pretty confident that you will dump MOSCITO altogether.

[hrothgar]

I suspect that Richard and I know what Moscito is.

 

Here's the really amusing part...

 

He's quoting system notes that I wrote.

[hrothgar]

Quote: In theory, you can adopted [sic] competitive methods designed to deter us from bidding 2M (this one is pretty hard)

 

This is exactly what I’m trying to address; developing a more “in-your-face” defence transferring the pressure back onto the MOSCITO pair. My 2♥ and 2♠ bids showing a 5/4 or 5/5 hand plus values, not only tells my partner my hand pattern, it also enables an easy cross-ruff situation when partner has a fit with the 5-card suit and an appropriate hand.

 

Let's assume that I open 1H, showing 4+ spades and ~9-14 HCP.

 

You have no bids that shows hearts that doesn't also show 5+ Spades.

 

Your 2S overcall shows hearts but promises 5+ Spades

Your 2H overcall shows hearts but promises 4+ Spades

Your 1S overcall shows hearts but promises 4+ Spades

 

Any single suited hand with hearts needs to double

Any two suited hand with 5+ hearts and a 4 card minor needs to double

(And god knows how many hand types)

 

In addition to crippling your ability to show Hearts, you've also deprived yourself of natural overcalls in Clubs and Diamonds. I'm not even going to start trying to understand how you hope to have a constructive auction after that double.

 

These are the stupidest methods that I have ever seen.

 

Your optimizing to show either extremely rare hand types or hands where probably don't want to be in the auction.

[32519]

What has happened to all the other MOSCITO posters? I found 49 MOSCITO threads in the Forums. Or are you fearful of seeing your gains from jamming the auction vaporise?

I think I will retain the acronym DOOM for my suggested defence, but now standing for this “Deadly Overcall Obliterating MOSCITO.” :P

[sfi]

3. MOSCITO has never been a particular popular system. I don't know many people who play it these days.

 

As I mentioned before, if this becomes the standard defence then that trend would change.

[hrothgar]

As I mentioned before, if this becomes the standard defence then that trend would change.

 

In the ACBL, the "standard defense" is to ban it outright...

[32519]

Any two suited hand with 5+ hearts and a 4 card minor needs to double

(And god knows how many hand types)

 

Who decided that my 2♦ bid needs to be 5/5? The definition says “a hand willing to bid to level 3.” What is stopping me from setting a trap for the MOSCITO players?

 

Back to BBO’s deal generator, this interesting hand was dealt:

 

West has a 7-card ♦ suit and openers ♠ suit covered from every conceivable angle. Out comes the 2♦ bid from West over Souths 1♥ bid, alerted as a 2-suited hand willing to compete to level 3. Whatever North does N/S are DOOM(ed). Count how many tricks you are down. West is going to X a possible 4♠ contract for penalties (pulling 4♠ to 4NT would show a hand looking to sacrifice). East sitting with a singleton ♠ may be the only person who knows what is going on.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skj97ha92d54ckj86&w=saqt2hdkqt9862c52&n=s8653hqj754da3cqt&e=s4hkt863dj7ca9743&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h(4+%20Spades)2d(2-suited%20hand)]399|300[/hv]

[sfi]

Over 2D the bidding continues with 2S from North, P - P back to you. Now you nowhere near as well off as standard bidders since your partner has no idea which two suits you have. You don't even get the chance to pass a responsive double for penalties. If North bids 3S instead of 2, you can't double that for penalties either and now you're struggling to find your best spot.

 

Getting the chance to double 4S is pure fantasy land.

 

But if you want to throw your own constructive bidding out of the window just because they've opened a 4 card major in front of you, be my guest.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I think that it is insane if your "two suited hand" can include the opponent's suit. (You've just deprived yourself of a cue bid and crippled partner's ability to infer a fit)

Comment 2: I think that it is dubious to treat a 7-4 hand as two suited.

 

If I were sitting North and heard the auction

 

1♥ - (2♦) I'd start with a fit showing jump to 3♥

I would prefer a slightly better heart suit and better texture in Spades, however, I think that it is the most descriptive call.

 

Its unclear what East is going to do...

Normally, I'd assume that partner is holding Diamonds and Clubs and make a club raise, however, I have no idea what's best against the 2♦ call that you describe.

I guess that East is forced to pass. (Note, the fact that you can overcall holding Spades means that East will be boxed out of raising on many cases when he can normally infer a fit)

 

South is now in a bit of a bind. The known double fit in Spades and Hearts is a big plus. However, he has a dead minimum opener.

I wouldn't fault either 3♠ or 4♠ and lean towards 4♠

[32519]

Having a defensive agreement against MOSCITO such as DOOM can have positive spin-offs. On the hand posted, and N/S having suffered a heavy penalty double, on a different yet similar hand may now err on the side of caution, stopping in a part-score when an easy game was on. The whole objective of my defence is to transfer pressure back onto the opponents. Your 2M bid is destructive, attempting to jam the auction. Now the pressure is on the opponents whether or not to balance.

 

Regarding some of your questions:

My 2♥ and 2♠ bids are descriptive and destructive at the same time. If your side is prepared to risk playing in 2M on a possible 4-3 fit and minimum values, what’s preventing me from taking a risk of playing on level 3 on a 5-2 or better holding in the other major. Balancing pushes the auction to level 3 anyway (over 2♠). So I want to make a very descriptive bid on my actual hand strength and holding. More often than not, my HCP will be concentrated in the 2 majors. Knowing that and the fact that I am sitting behind the player who opened one of the majors, increases my chances of any needed finesse in the suit.

The assumption that the hand posted contains 5/5 in the minors is wrong. Most likely it would then have been opened 2NT (unless really low on HCP). A really low holding in HCP then promises extreme distribution according to the definition. With extreme distribution, West would most likely have pulled 4♠ to 4NT indicating a willingness to sacrifice.

 

I take you calling my 2♦ bid insane as a compliment. All your questions indicate a growing interest in this defence. When you decide to adopt it, the least you can do is acknowledge where it originated. I think I will send a detailed write-up of DOOM to BridgeGuys for placing on their website. Then it is available for everyone, not just the members of the BBO Forums.

 

This is my last post on DOOM. I am the first to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed this polite exchange of ideas.

 

Over and out.

 

Andrew Lee (alias 32519)

[hrothgar]

If your side is prepared to risk playing in 2M on a possible 4-3 fit and minimum values, what’s preventing me from taking a risk of playing on level 3 on a 5-2 or better holding in the other major.

 

One more doubled undertrick?

[TimG]

Don’t you dare project your own ethical failures onto me. When I submit defenses to the ACBL, I try my best to provide effective methods that I myself would use at the table.

In my experience with the C&C Committee, I have found that they want to see short and simple defenses that employ commonly accepted approaches. They would not look favorably at a defense that used transfers in defense to an opening bid even if most (including committee members) would consider them theoretically better, for instance. They are looking for defenses that can be used without much thought or study.

[semeai]

In my experience with the C&C Committee, I have found that they want to see short and simple defenses that employ commonly accepted approaches. They would not look favorably at a defense that used transfers in defense to an opening bid even if most (including committee members) would consider them theoretically better, for instance. They are looking for defenses that can be used without much thought or study.

 

This comment of Tim's makes sense.

 

I wonder, hrothgar, what would have happened if way back when you went in front of the C&C committee you had suggested the simple defense (over 1H showing spades) of double = like a 1-level heart overcall, 1S = like a takeout double of spades, higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening (or if you need to suggest a complete defense, just standard stuff).

 

Maybe you did as an alternative, but you argued forcefully enough (or they already believed strongly enough) that it wasn't optimal that the committee decided nothing good enough could be simple enough?

 

It seems that having people running around playing transfer openings (in midchart events) and most of their opponents playing this very simple defense would do no harm to the ACBL.

[hrothgar]

This comment of Tim's makes sense.

 

I wonder, hrothgar, what would have happened if way back when you went in front of the C&C committee you had suggested the simple defense (over 1H showing spades) of double = like a 1-level heart overcall, 1S = like a takeout double of spades, higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening (or if you need to suggest a complete defense, just standard stuff).

 

 

Jack *****.

 

Members of the committee had no intention of ever sanctioning any defense to MOSCITO.

They were using the convention review process to have me jump through hoops, hoping that I'd get bored and go away...

[semeai]

Jack *****.

 

Members of the committee had no intention of ever sanctioning any defense to MOSCITO.

They were using the convention review process to have me jump through hoops, hoping that I'd get bored and go away...

 

Okay, fair enough. The sentiment in the last sentence of my previous post made me want to believe there was a possibility of them being more reasonable.

 

Also, 5 letters? What word was that?! :)

[gwnn]

I suspect it's the British spelling (ending in a silent vowel) of another word.

[TimG]

This comment of Tim's makes sense.

 

I wonder, hrothgar, what would have happened if way back when you went in front of the C&C committee you had suggested the simple defense (over 1H showing spades) of double = like a 1-level heart overcall, 1S = like a takeout double of spades, higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening (or if you need to suggest a complete defense, just standard stuff).

I did submit that defense to a 1H transfer opening. The 1H transfer opening was defined as a standard American 1S opening bid (5+ spades 11-21 HCP, etc.). It was approved, but not without questions and not without the stipulation that the 1H opening was forcing for a round. Nor was it enough to say "higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening", I had to describe what something like a 2D overcall would show. Though I did get away with "use methods as after a Standard American (1H)-2C" after stating that the 2C overcall was "natural and limited".

 

The description of the method and defense as approved ran over 2 pages in length and the defense was approved for events with rounds of 12+ boards only. It was considered "experimental".

 

My intention was to change the method slightly and resubmit the same defense for each modification. 1st would be standard with 4-card major suit openings instead of 5-card major suit openings. Next would be 5-card majors in a limited opening bid framework. Next 4-card majors in a limited opening bid framework. Etc. I did not make it a secret that this was my intention.

 

Shortly after the single transfer opening defense was approved, the C&C Committee put a moratorium on new methods. I followed the minutes of the C&C Committee for a couple of years after this. At some point, the C&C Committee removed some methods that had been approved and this was one of the casualties. I received no notice (and in fact the defense remained online for about a year after the Committee revoked the approval).

 

As Richard states, the Committee was never going to approve any defense to a MOSCITO style transfer opening (I was cc'ed on some e-mails that may have been intended for Committee members only that made their views clear). How close they were going to get was never ascertained because they dragged their feet and then instituted the moratorium. They effectively waited until I got bored.

 

I did once have a real desire to play a method where one of the minor suit openings showed exactly 4 spades, not quite a transfer opening, but something for which a defense to a transfer opening could have been easily adapted. Alas, I never put the method into play because of the resistance I knew I would receive from the C&C Committee.

[TimG]

Alas, I never put the method into play because of the resistance I knew I would receive from the C&C Committee.

And, I feel like the Committee members would put up a small cheer if they heard this.