a MOSCITO continuation

[straube]

We're trying out a 2H response to our strong club which shows 2-5 QPs and 4S/5+H, could be 45(40).

 

It lends itself to pretty obvious continuations...at first glance anyway.

 

2S-GF relay

2N-misfit, nf

3m-suit, nf

3H-fit, nf

3S-fit, nf

 

but on second thought I've wondered if it might make sense to allow opener to raise with Hx or HH. A few advantages...

 

1) doing so can help responder big game when invitational and holding 6 hearts.

2) there is still room to sort out 5-2 vs 5-3. Responder could simply rebid 3N or "transfer" to 3N by rebidding 3S.

3) There is likely to be at least some field protection with 1m-1H, 2N-3H (to play)

4) HH (like AQ) and hearts could easily block. Plus if opener is minimum and has points in hearts, a minor might be poorly stopped.

 

So are these good enough reasons to want to do this? We could certainly be in 3H with xxxxx opposite Kx with a 5-1 split.

 

The second question (and it kind of depends on the answer to the first question) is how to continue after 1C-2H, 2N. What should

any of the bids mean? We obviously need a way to force game and sign off showing 6 hearts. Do we want to be able to invite with 6 hearts or is that not

needed if we can raise with Hx? Is there any point in patterning out (showing a 5431?) Game in a minor seems unlikely to me. So does reserving 3C and

3D for weak 4504 and 4540 part scores.

 

So Richard and Frederick play MOSCITO and I'm hoping Adam has an opinion here. I don't mean to leave anyone else out who has a thought here.

[hrothgar]

Feels like there might be hands where you would want to play in 2♠

[straube]

Really surprised at the idea of giving up relay auctions when we're so perfectly set up for relays.

[hrothgar]

Really surprised at the idea of giving up relay auctions when we're so perfectly set up for relays.

 

I didn't suggest giving up relays.

 

I implied that using a Heart bid to show a spade suit might not be a good idea.

[straube]

I don't understand. You're not using 1C-2H as 4S/5+H? I've read that Moscito did this at one time.

[hrothgar]

I don't understand. You're not using 1C-2H as 4S/5+H? I've read that Moscito did this at one time.

 

 

Yeah. I was never comletely happy with this however. As I recall, we were using 2NT as the relay here and 2S was preference

[straube]

Yeah. I was never comletely happy with this however. As I recall, we were using 2NT as the relay here and 2S was preference

 

and pretty obviously 2H was not forcing. Our club is 1-2 points stronger and our 2H needs to be forcing (or we have to find a home for xxxx AQJxxxx - xx etc).

[straube]

1C-2H (4S/5+H and 2-5 QPs)

 

.....2S-GF relay

.....2N-misfitting, no 6-cd minor, nf

..........3C-nf, 4612 or 4603

..........3D-nf, 4621 or 4630

..........3H-nf, 47 or self-sufficient hearts

..........3S-GF, 6H

.....3C-6 clubs

..........3D-GF, short or weak diamonds (xx or better clubs)

..........3H-nf

..........3S-GF, 6 hearts

.....3D-6D

..........3H-nf

..........3S-GF, 6 hearts

[newroad]

Hi Straube.

 

For clarity, you've presented a possible solution but I'm unclear as to the perceived problem?

 

In essence, I'm implicitly asking the same question(s) as hrothgar - what is causing you to likely wrongside hearts and/or prevent a convenient offer to play in spades?

 

Apologies in advance if advance knowledge of your core method would have made this clear.

 

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

The answer to that is pretty into the weeds. I'm playing IMPrecision responses to 1C except switching...

 

1H-4+ spades any except for 3-suited short clubs

2H-3-suited short spades

2S-3-suited short clubs

 

to

 

1H-4+ spades any except 4S/5+H

2H-4S/5+H

2S-3-suited short clubs

 

As you can see, the original also wrongsides hearts but is (after 1C-1H, 1N) able to "transfer" back to 2H and play there.

 

I pretty much need to announce the 4S/5+H hand early because I continue a little differently after 1C-1H and especially after 1C-1H, 2C (clubs) I need to be assured that with

2D-GF relay

2H-5S/4H

2S-6S

 

I don't miss out on any heart fits.

 

A simpler explanation is that in contested auctions I ought to have less of a problem after 1C-1H (3D) P P in sorting out 4S/5+H, 5+S/4H, 5S/5H

[newroad]

Thanks for the clarification, Straube.

 

To complete the picture, what level of "forcingness" do these 2-5 QP responses come with?

 

Regards, Newroad

 

PS If the answer is as per IMPrecision c2009, you can just say that, citing any pertinent exceptions

[Free]

AFAIK after 1♣-2♥, the system was:

2♠ = to play

2NT = GF relay (steps +1 which is great for semi positives)

others = natural NF

 

Seems very obvious to be able to play 2♠ when responder showed ♠s... Moreover, it allows responder to describe his hand further, so there's less need to raise ♥ on Hx.

 

If you are using 2♠ as the GF relay and 2NT as a misfitting hand, then I'd rather bid 3m with a 3 card (5431) instead of a 6421. When opener didn't bid 3♠ or 3m (and didn't pass) he'll almost certainly have a 5-4 or 5-5m in which case even a 4-3 will play quite ok at 3-level.

[straube]

Thanks for the clarification, Straube.

 

To complete the picture, what level of "forcingness" do these 2-5 QP responses come with?

 

Regards, Newroad

 

PS If the answer is as per IMPrecision c2009, you can just say that, citing any pertinent exceptions

 

We play 2-5 while IMPrecision c2009 is 2-6, but both versions are forcing until opener offers to play somewhere.

[straube]

AFAIK after 1♣-2♥, the system was:

2♠ = to play

2NT = GF relay (steps +1 which is great for semi positives)

others = natural NF

 

Seems very obvious to be able to play 2♠ when responder showed ♠s... Moreover, it allows responder to describe his hand further, so there's less need to raise ♥ on Hx.

 

If you are using 2♠ as the GF relay and 2NT as a misfitting hand, then I'd rather bid 3m with a 3 card (5431) instead of a 6421. When opener didn't bid 3♠ or 3m (and didn't pass) he'll almost certainly have a 5-4 or 5-5m in which case even a 4-3 will play quite ok at 3-level.

 

I've kind of inferred that MOSCITO uses 1C-2H as nf. I think it has to be if 2N would be used as GF relay. Anyway, our 2H is forcing so I think we ought to give some thought as to how to find 6-2 heart fits. We can do this by raising with a doubleton or by rebidding 2N and having responder "show" 6 hearts with tolerance for a minor. If you played 2H as forcing, how would you continue?

[straube]

Btw I'm very happy with this meaning of 1C-2H. We usually get to game, we're +0, we've told something lovely about responder's hand. We do have to show fit at the 3-level, but that's often or usually the case when we find an 8-cd major suit fit anyway. I'm just wondering what the best continuation would be for those instances where we don't find a fit and opener can't power out game.

[newroad]

Thanks for the second clarification, Straube.

 

Apologies in advance for any typos or misunderstandings in a somewhat lengthy consideration below.

 

I had to go and have a look at IMPrecision to consider what you are doing in context (though I realise from your earlier clarification that you are actually asking a more narrow question: what continuations are best on the assumption that you will play 1C 2H as 5+H/4S semi-POS).

 

It seems to me that 2S best played as NAT NF and 2NT is played as R – you’ll not often play in 3NT after this start, but when you do, it’s very likely better played by opener. More importantly, IMPrecision is impure with regard to Symmetric Relay, so being up one step by default is unlike to philosophically offend (as opposed to getting to 3NT after starting 1C 1S with 3=4=4=2, which does somewhat offend me).

 

I would argue then that 1C 2H 2S already shows at least a mild misfit in the above context (with 3S, 4S and 2NT being able to handle cases with genuine spade support and/or non-MIN). Indeed, I would expect 2S to typically have only 3 spades, short hearts and often/always both minors (see below).

 

It’s interesting what to do with MIN 3=2=4=4 and 3=2=(5=3) types after 1C 2H. If you permit 2S with 3=2=4=4 then with responder’s possible 4=5=(4=0) type, a correction to the 4-4+ fit in 3m would seem prescribed. Perhaps better is if you permit 2S with 3=2=(5=3) then 1C 2H 2S 2NT could show a desire to bid 3H (4/6+ with moderate hearts) but allowing opener to pass with a void or try 3m on the way through hoping for a 5/2+ fit. Instead bidding 1C 2H 2S 3H direct would then show a semi-solid (1 loser opposite a void) suit.

 

Taking all the above into account, you would probably only need to handle mis-fitting minor single suiters, which 1C 2H 3m as NF would seem to do adequately. 1C 2H 3M would show a fit – I would leave the decision on whether to raise hearts on HH or Hx or hx to be a matter of judgement, in the context of the overall hand, rather than system.

 

2=1=5=5 and a MIN seems the only truly difficult scenario after 1C 2H. I would Pass with it – all other things being equal.

 

On your 4=7=0=2 example hand, I suspect simply game forcing on it is the practical approach, though it wouldn’t take too much fiddling with the 1C 2NT+ responses , or adding 1C 4C+ responses, to cater for this type explicitly.

 

Many possibilities above already been suggested or implied in part by you and others – just trying to give a rounded view.

 

I’m now going to go and see if I can reverse engineer the intended design goals (versus adopting a more classic symmetric approach) of the IMPrecision semi-POS methods, as they are not immediately obvious to me nor stated in the notes that I can see …

 

Regards, Newroad

[awm]

The IMPrecision response style comes out of a few observations:

 

1. In most forms of strong club, the 1♣-1♦ sequence is very common and contains a huge number of hand types. This makes the system quite vulnerable to competitive bidding by fourth hand. Showing shapely semi-positive (and minimum positive) hands directly is a huge help here.

2. The most common responding hand to strong club is roughly in the 5-11 hcp range, so it makes sense to emphasize these hands in continuations. Symmetric relay (for example) consistently loses two steps on the semi-positive hands which causes them to resolve considerably higher and can make slam bidding more difficult.

3. All else being equal, it is better for the balanced hand to relay and the unbalanced hand to describe; our methods allow an unbalanced opener to describe to a balanced game forcing responder.

4. The fact that the direct responses are forcing but not necessarily game-forcing (they are defined as 5+ hcp and 2-6 RP) means we need to focus non-relay continuations on getting out efficiently when no game presents itself.

5. We want opener to declare where possible, so we play some transfer-oriented stuff (as is pretty common these days).

[straube]

Newroad, first thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

I'm pretty on-record for recommending the IMPrecision strong club structure. I think there ought to be threads and threads about it. It's basically....

 

1D-asks opener to describe his shape....which is of interest to both very weak and very strong hands. The 1D bidder is captain. In later bidding, the weak and strong hands are separated.

1H+-responder gives responses which can be relayed at +0 (same as standard symmetric) or opener may deny GF values and then typically we have natural bidding to a part score or game contract

 

If you compare this to MOSCITO, you find MOSCITO is +1 for its semipositives which is not that bad for game/slam exploration but very difficult imo when you realize that opener is very preempted for breaking relay and finding a suitable part score. MOSCITO is +1 for its GF hands as well.

 

If you compare to standard symmetric, you are +0 for gf hands but +2 for semipositive hands...which really are almost not playable.

 

Personally, I think sometimes there is a single best solution for a given bid. I'm not sure strong club is the best system, but I think the 2-way diamond response with relayable semipositives is the solution for strong club. A lot of the 1H+ responses are just forced. I've tried fiddling with them, switching things around and other than this 2H bid I'm trying out, I think awm and sieong just nailed it.

[newroad]

Noted, AWM and Straube.

 

Re AWM’s comments

 

On (1), agreed, I see the merits in having NEG/semi-POS/POS ranges rather than just NEG/POS. However, I might be influenced based on how strong the 1C is though: 17+ might push me towards the latter, 15+ towards the former

 

On (2), your ranges seem reasonable, if perhaps wide for useful consideration. To simplify, opposite a 16+ first seat 1C, partner rates to have an 8 count on average, with some degree of variation around that figure. Opposite a 17+ first seat 1C, responder doesn't rate to have much less, so game is more often than not in the frame - see my thoughts on (1) above.

 

Also on (2), Moscito-like methods need not consistently lose two steps (though I suppose it depends on how “consistently” is defined). There are many (many) ways one can slice'n'dice this, but as a “Straw Man” for discussion purposes

 

1C 1D = ART, POS

1C 1H = ART, NEG

1C 1S = semi-POS, BAL or H (1/S or 2/S with m)

1C 1NT = semi-POS, S (1/S or 2/S with m)

1C 2C = semi-POS, H+S (2/S or 3/S short m)

1C 2D = semi-POS, D (1/S or 3/S short M)

1C 2H = semi-POS, D&C

1C 2S (or 1C 2S+, depending on your view of the risk of zooming shape in this context) = semi-POS, C

 

Assuming no typos from me, this is a fairly straightforward Symmetric implementation, with a HSDC suit order. 1C 1S 1NT 2C with 1S 2C is the only meaningful swap, to allow 1C 1S 1NT to be played as semi-F (not dissimilar to your own). The DC order at the end is so that (a) 2D can be passed, and (b) if you have a club fit, you are unlikely to be able to win the auction in 2C anyway, so you may as well try and do so with 3C if at all. Relays are convenient and R+1 in most cases, only 1C 1S 2C (if not willing to risk 1NT being passed) and 1C 2S 2NT (if not zooming shape) are R+2. Further, sign-offs in shown suits are convenient, i.e. the next step is never the shown suit. Finally, there is enough low-utility space to explicitly show misfits opposite the two major suit oriented responses: 1C 1S[=often hearts] 2D and 1C 1NT[=spades] 2D respectively, which on a frequency basis is where you’re most likely to want them.

 

1C 1H as a NEG allows a wide range 1NT rebid, 1S ART, F if very strong, and 2C+ to taste, but always shaped.

 

1C 1D as ART, FG, allows either relay at R levels, or a combination of relay and reverse-relay at R+1 levels (my preference of the two). If however you prefer the former, then you could start with

 

1C 1D 1H = S (1/S, 2/S or 3/S short m)

1C 1D 1S = BAL or H&D

1C 1D 1NT = H (1/S or H&C)

1C 1D 2C = D (1/S or 3/S short M)

etc

 

You get the drift – in the FG auctions, things are generally right sided. You can do similarly in the R+1 variation mentioned (it would become closer to the semi-POS structure, without any R+2 scenarios).

 

On (3), unbalanced hand showing I agree, which is one of the reasons I like a relay/reverse relay structure all things being equal. One would have to do a more detailed analysis to compare the relative success in this regard of IMPrecision vs Straw Man vs any other similar attempt.

 

On (4), getting out conveniently when no game appears on offer, agreed in principle (but not at any design cost). I think Straw Man does this quite well in an alternate way.

 

On (5), transfers for right-siding, fair enough where you need to (and I hope I’ve understood what you mean here). Better if possible is to build the right-siding as far as possible into the archetypal relay structure, rather than try and sort it via secondary transfers later.

 

Perhaps IMPrecision is incredibly clear and easy to remember once you start playing it – my casual look at it suggested that compared to the simpler variations of symmetric above it wouldn't be, which if so, shouldn't be understated (and in some of the by definition common BAL cases, gets fairly high).

 

As always, the truth is in the playing :)

 

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

 

1C 1D = ART, POS

1C 1H = ART, NEG

1C 1S = semi-POS, BAL or H (1/S or 2/S with m)

1C 1NT = semi-POS, S (1/S or 2/S with m)

1C 2C = semi-POS, H+S (2/S or 3/S short m)

1C 2D = semi-POS, D (1/S or 3/S short M)

1C 2H = semi-POS, D&C

1C 2S (or 1C 2S+, depending on your view of the risk of zooming shape in this context) = semi-POS, C

 

Assuming no typos from me, this is a fairly straightforward Symmetric implementation, with a HSDC suit order. 1C 1S 1NT 2C with 1S 2C is the only meaningful swap, to allow 1C 1S 1NT to be played as semi-F (not dissimilar to your own). The DC order at the end is so that (a) 2D can be passed, and (b) if you have a club fit, you are unlikely to be able to win the auction in 2C anyway, so you may as well try and do so with 3C if at all. Relays are convenient and R+1 in most cases, only 1C 1S 2C (if not willing to risk 1NT being passed) and 1C 2S 2NT (if not zooming shape) are R+2. Further, sign-offs in shown suits are convenient, i.e. the next step is never the shown suit. Finally, there is enough low-utility space to explicitly show misfits opposite the two major suit oriented responses: 1C 1S[=often hearts] 2D and 1C 1NT[=spades] 2D respectively, which on a frequency basis is where you’re most likely to want them.

 

 

I just don't think this is very playable. As I tried to point out, the difficulty with +1 semipositives isn't so much in the relay auctions but when you don't relay. It's nice that you order things so that opener can show fit in the non-asking suit, but what about when opener wants to show his own suit? Or two suits? Or suit and fit? Splinter? Etc. I'm just wondering how much you've really played around with this. My impression of MOSCITO players is that they've ordered and reordered their semipositives many times which gives me the idea that they haven't been entirely happy with the whole thing. I've personally played around with IMPrecision's relay breaks (hundreds of hours) and even +0 it's a bit challenging (though it does succeed in my opinion) to find those part scores and fits and all. So this straw man is mostly +1 but has a lot of +2 and is even more problematic than MOSCITO. Nice that the DNs have more room, but I think you're giving them far too much space.

[newroad]

Hi Straube.

 

Compliments of the season to you and yours!

 

I've never played anything that purported to be MOSCITO (though I did play what was in effect a strong club implementation of FPR when MOSCITO was still using one bid, 1D as I recall, to show both majors. In this, we played 1C = 14+ hcp, 1D = 4+H 9-13 hcp, 1H = 4+S, 1S = 4+/4+ minors etc. In some respects, this was slightly ahead of its time).

 

Further, though a few years ago I considered something similar to the Straw Man method, I didn't and don't play it so these musings are purely an academic consideration for me at present.

 

I think your point about relay versus non-relay auctions is valid - where we might disagree is on how prevalent these situations are likely to be and therefore how much design (and memory) effort to put into them. IMPrecision c2009 has a fairly hefty strong club (16+, 17+ if BAL) so my inclinations would be weighted to towards the relay side. As mentioned before, the proof is in the playing (and it may come down to personal philosophy as well - some people prefer to break relay more often than others).

 

In essence, I had to look at IMPrecision to properly consider your question, and when I did, at first blush, it appeared to have significant complexity compared to Symmetric and I couldn't at face value see enough rationale - hence I asked the question. To vary from Symmetric, one should really be able to justify what one's doing, both in a playability sense (which you judge IMPrecision does) and a memory sense (to do well in a long tournament against strong opposition, you can't afford either system lapses or declarer/defensive lapses deriving at least in part from effort expended on system recall).

 

Straw Man would be fairly easy to play (for someone already versed in Symmetric) as you can always go back to Mama to work things out if needed. The "bad" relay breaks have a sensible and convenient mechanism in most cases (via 2D) - it is possible that the "good" relay breaks to which you alluded (splinters, fit-showing etc) less so, but as previously mentioned, I'm perhaps more inclined to continue relaying with these than you. Straw Man does a couple of other things well in addition (e.g. the early separation of possible hearts versus spades versus hearts and spades) but it's all a bit moot, no-one plays Straw Man - this was really about considering the bang for buck of IMPrecision relative complexity.

 

Regards, Newroad

[straube]

Newroad,

 

Opener breaks relay when he can't force game.

 

Fair enough point about memory load. The relay breaks have more to remember because there is much more that opener can describe. IMPrecision seemed rather daunting to me when I first looked into it. Well worth it.

 

Thanks for the discussion. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year