German Moscito Examples....

[luis]

(1) Opening structure

1C = Strong

1D = No 4 card major

1H = 4+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades

1S = 4+ Spades, 0-3 Hearts

1N = Both majors

 

(2) Over 1C

1D = Negative

1H = Spades, unbalanced

1S = Hearts, unbalanced

1N = Balanced

2C = Dimaonds

2D = Clubs

2H+ = Both minors

 

(3) Standard symmetric relay, High Shortage First

 

(4) 4D = End Signal

Step = Asking for AKQ Slam points

Step +1... = RKCB for suits

 

Let me disagree :-) Maybe you can convince me after all

 

Opening bids:

A 1s opening that can be balanced is bad because over the 1N relay you can't bid 1N and many times with a balanced hand the best spot to play is 1N, I strongly suggest to use 1s as 4+s UNBAL, 1N= balanced with 4/5 spades, 2c=Majors. This is what the 1993 and 2000 versions of German Moscito recommend and I can't find any reason to change it.

 

About responses to 1c:

I really prefer:

1h = 4+s

1s = 4+h no 4s

1n = 4+d no 4M

2c = 9-11 balanced no 5M

2d = One suited with 4+ clubs

This perfectly matches the S1, S2 schemes used by German Moscito.

 

About shape resolution:

I have no problem with high shortage first or last, it's the same to me. It is important to keep the relay structure easy to learn and based on rules not in memorization.

 

Slam tools:

If we use a CAB followed by denial cuebids then a 4d terminator is not needed (and adds extra complexity to the system) once shape is resolved a relay (not 3n) is a control asking bid while all the other bids are to-play. Then denial cuebids are used being all non-relay bids to play. This is simple, automatic to remember and works very well.

[moscito-d]

I completely agree with Louis. 1S with balanced hands is bad and so is a balanced 1N reply to the strong 1C. Both may be wrong-siding contracts and break the symmetry.

 

As far as hi/lo shortage first is concerned, there is a slight case for hi shortage first: When only finding the right game is your target, it is usally a choice between 3N and 4Maj. If relayee with a high shortage does not reveal his shape immediately, relayer can jump to 3N without telling the opps more than necessary, since 4Maj is no longer an option opposite the shortage. This applies whenever the residues are a minor and a major. To us, this slight advantage seemed not worth changing our habits and risking memory lapses, but if I were to learn Moscito from scratch now, I would tend to use high shortage first.

 

Our experience with AKQ slam points has not been too convincing, so we switched back to simple AK controls and denial cues. However, we added some slam oriented break-outs that allow opener to set a suit and ask for responders judgment. After that, we use RKCB with spiral scan and Exclusion KCB. This addition to our slam arsenal has been very valuable over the last years. On the other hand, this is certainly a little too complicated for beginners...

[hrothgar]

Nearly everyone these days uses 4D as end signal/terminator.

I really think that we should teach folks the methods that are in common use.

 

In a simialr fashion, 5332s hands with a major are currently treated as balanced rather than single suited.

R needs to be able to break relays and ask for stoppers for intelligent exploration of 3NT

 

Given that our goal is to define a system that is as simple as possible for use in teaching, I really think that all bids from 1H+ should be used to show game forcing hands. Anyone who is serious enough to want to memorize the 2H+ semi-positives responses is better served learning the 1D positive schema.

[the hog]

I hope you guys don't mind. I invited Rene to participate in this discussion.

 

I strongly suggest to use 1s as 4+s UNBAL, 1N= balanced with 4/5 spades, 2c=Majors. This is what the 1993 and 2000 versions of German Moscito recommend and I can't find any reason to change it.

 

Why have 2 bids to show S? That is inefficient and inelegant. You also create the major problem of totally wasting a bid that could be useful to show another holding. I don't understand the logic behind this at all.

I guess if you wanted to you could play 1S 2C as the relay, (up 2 steps), as some pairs did originally, so that you can retain a natural 1NT response, though 1S 1NT* has never worried us unduly when we played this version.

 

You could play if you wished

1D = both Ms

1H = unbal with H

1S = unbal with S

1NT = bal 11-14

2C = 6C or 5+C & 4D

2D = 6D or 5+D & 4C

 

Another option is to play that 1H could be balanced, but that the 1NT opening shows a balanced 11-14 perhaps with 4S, but not 4H. So the 1S opening is always unbalanced.

 

Re the 1D opening showing a hand with no 4 card M. This means presumably that hands with 6+Ds or 6+C are both opened with 1D. This was tried here and discarded very swiftly as it places an enormous strain on that opening. Note that above options remove the pressure you have placed on the 1D opening.

 

As a corollory to this, to play 2C as constructive, 9-14, with both Majors is bad system design. With the Majors you are not that worried about being outbid, and therefore the auction should start lower, Similarly with the minors you ARE worried about being outbid and therefore you should make it harder for the opps by starting the auction at a higher level.

 

Slam tools:

If we use a CAB followed by denial cuebids then a 4d terminator is not needed (and adds extra complexity to the system) once shape is resolved a relay (not 3n) is a control asking bid while all the other bids are to-play. Then denial cuebids are used being all non-relay bids to play. This is simple, automatic to remember and works very well.

 

Disagree with not using the 4D terminator. You will find this is standard practice in virtually all modern relay systems. Contrary to Rene, we have had good experiences using a combination of AKQ points and RKCB. AK points alone do not a possible slam make; you need fillers. Also this method gives you heaps of flexibility and is very easy to remember.

 

Can live with your scheme of responses to 1C Luis, however again I do believe it is more efficient to include ALL 5332s in the flat hand response. I also see no need for 2 flat hand responses 9-11 & 12+. Why? Presumably so you can bid 3NT over a 2C bid without giving away information. But again there is a loss of efficiency and symmetry here.

 

The current S1 S2 structure as played by Rene is actually Bruce Neill's development of a relay structure that is different to symmetric. I have had a look at it and it is definitely not as easy as the original symmetric. Mind you it is easier than Marston's current structure which involved multi plexing some bids. If you are going to produce something easy, then there is no doubt that the original structure is the way to go. Bruce's structure includes the 4D terminator. He and Ron Klinger are playing something similar at the moment.

 

What this does is to include hands with 4333 in the single suited structure and 4432 shapes in the 2 suited structure. I personally feel that from a memory point of view showing flat hands with a 1NT bid is FAR more intuitive. The resolution in the original structure that specific shapes, 3D eg was always a 5332 s/suited or 5431 in 2 suited was a great boon to memory.

 

Luis, Ben et al, what you need to ask is "What is the purpose of this exercise?" If it is to produce a bbo version of moscito that can be played on line etc, then I guess it does not really matter much what shape it takes as long as it is not too difficult to learn. If otoh the purpose is to produce a system that introduces people to relay bidding, then there is no doubt that this system should be based on the Symmetric structure. Why? The Symmetric engine is transportable and has been used as a basis of many systems, not least of which the original Symmetric relay. Having a grasp of Symmetric provides a player with transferable skills. The S1 S2 schemes of Bruce Neill are quite clever, but they are definitely not Symmetric.

 

I agree with Richard that the semi positives in the German structure are nowhere near as efficient as the new Moscito structure, BUT I guess we are looking at something easy and intuitive.

 

Rene, I played 1C 1NT as the balanced response for years and found no problem with the possible wrong siding of contracts. Don't forget that as the Mos C is only 15+, the comparative strength of opener and resp is more likely to be similar than in say Precision. Also the 1C 1NT structure is great for opener being able to reverse the relay and limit his hand to a 15-18.

eg 1C 1N 2D = H + ?, 2H = S +a minor.

 

These work REALLY well.

 

One last thought - no one has mentioned using Roy Kerr's bidding tool to practice the system. Ben, Luis, Rene etc if you don't know about this tool have a look at:

http://www.bridge2symmetric.com

 

Ron

[Antoine Fourrière]

I know this thread is theoretically about German Moscito, but I feel that German Moscito is right about having an opening showing both majors, and that Aussie Moscito is right about right-siding the major-suit contacts and separating quickly the club one-suiters from the diamond hands (and very wrong in squandering the 2C opening into a six-card suit).

 

How about that combination?

 

1D hearts without spades

1H spades without hearts

1S diamonds without a major

1NT balanced, usually no major, may have long clubs

2C both majors (could be shaded if 5-5)

2D weak (maybe hearts or spades and a minor)

2H weak (maybe spades or hearts and a minor)

2S 9-14 clubs with 3 spades

2NT 7-11 clubs (0-2 spades if 9-11)

3C 11-14 clubs (0-2 spades, but 6322 often opens 1NT)

 

(Or simply 2S 9-14 with 6 clubs)

 

Comments?

[the hog]

Yes Antoine, you have not read the posts properly. Suggestions HAVE been made for a bid showing both Majors.

Also to have 3 bids showing Cs is a chronic waste of 2 bids. The other problem is that what you propose is not legal in the States.

[luis]

Another option is to play that 1H could be balanced, but that the 1NT opening shows a balanced 11-14 perhaps with 4S, but not 4H. So the 1S opening is always unbalanced.

 

1h can always be balanced because you have the 1h-1s;1n sequence to show a balanced minimum.

1NT always shows 4s or 5s, and can also have 4h if 4-4[32]. The 1s opening is always unbalanced and that's really good since you can preempt with a lot of hands once you know your pd has an unbalanced hand, it is safer and it is wiser to do it and makes life harder for opps.

 

About the relay structure, why do you say it is not symmetric? I think it is so easy to remember and to play that I have succeded teaching it to some players in about 2 hours.

 

I can't see why the 4d terminator can be useful if we use CAB+denial cuebids. It's not logical to put something into the system just because others use it :-) it has to have some purpose. If you add other options to the CAB + DC scheme then 4d is needed 'cos 4h and 4s would eventually have a different meaning but that is hardly needed and makes the system more complex.

 

About 5332 and 4333 hands in the S1 scheme it is good because when you deny a balanced hand those distributions are usually pulled from S1 and if you denied a balanced minimum then a 4333 or 5332 hand shows a good 13-14 hand, that is good knowledge for pd because he can know you have some fillers. Same when you respond to 1c, if you have 13+ it is better to describe since a game contract is almost always cold but with 9-11 a 2d response with balanced hands is perfect, opener frequently bids 3nt and the defenders know almost nothing. With a 5M on the other hand many times opener will prefer a 4M contract and that's why 5332 hands with 5M are not included in 1c-2c.

 

Please notice that I think Aussie Moscito is superior to German, I play both versions and prefer the transfer openings and I also like the 1c-1d GF scheme but the German version is as legal as precision and it is very easy to learn and then switching is easy that's why I think we should put some efficiency aside and build something very easy and very playable for newbies.

 

Luis

[DenisO]

As one of the newbies who would like to give Moscito a try I would second that opinion Luis. I was quite excited by Inquiry's original post hoping it would lead to a reasonably simple BBO Moscito - augmented hopefully by a good set of annotated bidding examples. I really think something as simple as possible is what is needed to get a feel for the system. It might not be the most efficient but that could come later.

For bidding examples it could be useful to use those in hrothgar's excellent set of notes, so that we newbies could more easily see the differences in treatment.

 

Denis

[pbleighton]

Luis writes:

"but the German version is as legal as precision"

 

Is German Moscito GCC Legal?

[luis]

In my country we use the WBF regulations (sortof orgnization is a disaster) so rewriting... we are supossedly using the WBF regulations.

Under WBF regulations German Moscito is a "BLUE" system because 1c is not dual and we don't have any "red system" treatment. So it is categorized in the same way as precision.

For the ACBL this should be a mid-chart system because of relays I think that no relay system can be GCC (absurd ins't it?)

Note that this version is just a 4 card majors and strong club system with relays used only with INV+ hands so I think it is perfectly legal under mid-chart conditions and in any WBF tournament where BLUE systems are allowed (meaning: all tournaments).

I only used the system in my country and here if precision can be played then this version of moscito can be played too.

 

Maybe René can have a mor authoritative opinion on this.

René?

[hrothgar]

I can't see why the 4d terminator can be useful if we use CAB+denial cuebids. It's not logical to put something into the system just because others use it :-) it has to have some purpose.

 

Standards are valuable in their own right. Interoperability is an end, in and of itself.

 

Our goal should be to foster the development of a MOSCITO community. This is best accomplished if we adopt the structures in common use. The vast majority of relay players have standardized on 4D end signal. Ergo, we should adopt the same.

 

In all seriousness Luis, the variant that you use is highly non-standard.

I believe that it would be a serious mistake to attempt base an education program arround it.

 

For what its worth, MOSCITO is definitively not legal at the GCC level.

 

Out of curiousity, is there a roguh estimate how many players are interested in learning the system?

[inquiry]

Ok... I am interested in learning the system, and if you read the learn moscito thread there were 8 people listed who were interested in learning moscito, and several knowledgable people willing to help them. I also know two players who have told me that IF we can agree on a standardized version that a fairly reasonable group of people agree to play, they would be willing to learn. So that brings the list to 10 students (of varying playing ability and experience).

 

A side issue, I will have to agree with Richard. The moscito should be a fairly simple version which has features common to other versions. Spiral scan is ok, and denial cue-bidding. But I agree the 4D terminator should be in there. The two bids should be left to the others to decide....but just as the new German moscito uses immediate leaps to show some positive hands with 4441 distribution in response to 1C, there is some attractiveness to opening bids that show these these hands.

 

As a friendly system for play in the BBO, I think we should adopt Luis's CONCEPT that the basic system should be designed to reach thin games and slams rather than to be disruptive. The reason for this is clear, while disruptive bidding has its place and is very important for an overall winning strategy, those who play a BBO moscito in the BBO will be facing players of all levels and abilities and who will be unfamiliar with moscito and will not have had time to develop adequate defenses to it. I think if the bidding was constructively designed so as not to try to take advantage of this lack of experience on their parts, but rather maximize your constructive bidding, there would be less hard feelings and not add to the rancor when people face unusual destructive weapons.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

My own preference would be to use the following preemptive structure:

 

2D = Constructive preempt in either major

2H = 5 Hearts, weak

2S = 5 Spades, weak

2N = "Bad" 3 level preempt in either minor

3C = Constructive

3D = Constructive

3H = Weak

3S = Weak

 

This is both easy and pretty standard. [Plus it matches the version already in my notes]

However, I'm very flexible about the meanings for bids from 2NT up.

[inquiry]

After reading the English translation of new version of German moscito, I think it might be best to start with a truncated version of Richards notes and change "his" document to meet the needs of the group of players who are willing to learn a basic moscito.

 

The reason I suggest this is that the person who converted the german to english went wild with find in replace to save pages.... I can deal with "s" being suits, but 2sers for two suiters is a little disconcerting and some sentences are simple undecipherable. Examples are:

"After the 2serbids 1, 2 and 2, the responder can

ask for the 2nd s and lengths."

 

and

 

"Rule: After intervention, 1 or 1 from 1-opener is

always the STR [r], and there is no NEG

anymore, if the responder has limited himself

to 5HCP."

 

This doesn't mean that I don't like German Moscito, to the contrary in fact, but I don't think we should force this PDF document which I don't think we can edit onto students... Richard's can easily be modified to meet our needs I think, if he is willing to let us. We can incorporate the best of Luis's and German moscito idea's into it. But NO slam points.... :-)

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

But NO slam points.... :-)

 

Uh ...

 

Slam points are the most critical part of hand evaluation

They underlie the whole auction termination system

How do you propose playing without them?

[the hog]

It is not symmetric Luis. The symmetric structure treats 3 specific hand types - single suiters, 2 suiters and flat hands. Thae bastardised Neill scheme includes 4333s and 4432s in the s/s and 2 suited schema - a mistake in my view. I can live with your schema, but symmetric it is not. If you wish I can email you the symmetric engine. My concern was (is) that you are teaching people something played by only a handful around the world, wheras symmetric is known and understood by far more.

 

Kepping 4D as a teminator is not just because other relay system do it, but because CAB and denial cue bids together are not sufficient to investigate higher level contracts. Your CP are AK only. As I have pointed out you often need fillers to bid slams, hence you can use step after shape to ask for this hand type - AKQ controls, and other steps apart from 4D and 3NT to set suits when you are only interested in kc.

 

Ron

[inquiry]

No slam points and stopping auctions? How? Hopefully the same way almost all the other moscito systems I have read do. Note Rene's comment in this thread which was "Our experience with AKQ slam points has not been too convincing, so we switched back to simple AK controls and denial cues.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Here once again, I will note the following:

 

My impression is that AKQ Slam Points, End Signal, + RKCB is predominantly accepted as the standard treatment in MOSCITO. Sartaj and Ron have better visibility into what is in common practice down under, however, I'm pretty sure that the relay community is settling towards rough consensus.

 

I also think that AKQ slam points plus RKCB is more efficient, but that's a whole 'nother story.

 

Finally, my MOSCITO notes have 25 pages of notes and examples providing a nice complete description of this auction termination style. There is no way that I have enough time to duplicate this effort for a different termination scheme.

[mishovnbg]

Hi MOSCITO fans, not swatted yet :o!

I follow the discussion with interest, despite I dont like the idea of MOSCITO system. But will be interesting for me the discussion to be continued with important bids except openings and relays - answers, rebids... the difficult matter about competitive bidding and the overcall structure similar to MOSCITO... Relays after overcalls? Transfer answers to overcalls and take out dbl? My suggestions to continue with success for new fans of MOSCITO ( for theoretical discussion may be better to create new post ) :

 

1. Openings:

 

1D = both Ms

1H = unbal with H

1S = unbal with S

1NT = bal 11-14

2C = 6C or 5+C & 4D

2D = 6D or 5+D & 4C

 

Note: 1NT both majors 9-14 hcp is NOT WBF blue legal ( cant play it at any tournament ).

 

2. The responses to 1CL - like opening. The same continuations for simplification. With both majors need solution.

 

Note: I prefer the inverted and transferred responses, but please everybody to not forget the main purpose of this post!

 

3. Agree to most common and really symmetric structure with HiMiLo answers to relays.

 

Note: Perfect is enemy of good 8).

 

4. 4DI end signal, successfully used since it was invented by poles.

 

Note: I prefer to play without 4DI too, but please again everybody to not forget the main purpose of this post!

 

5. Sorry I dont know what style of slam convention is most common now, cant understand from your posts. But please choose 1 way for BBO MOSCITO STANDARD. AKQ slam points, CAB, denial cue bids scan, RKCB ... - what, when, why - quickly please!!!

 

Note: I prefer CAB + denial cue bids/RKCB like Luis, but it is not important - way you choose must be just most popular, not best!!!

 

Sorry I interfere in your discussion friends, but will be really nice in my opinion, if you succeed to agree to BBO MOSCITO STANDART.

 

Misho

[pbleighton]

Ron writes:

"Luis, Ben et al, what you need to ask is "What is the purpose of this exercise?" If it is to produce a bbo version of moscito that can be played on line etc, then I guess it does not really matter much what shape it takes as long as it is not too difficult to learn. If otoh the purpose is to produce a system that introduces people to relay bidding, then there is no doubt that this system should be based on the Symmetric structure. Why? The Symmetric engine is transportable and has been used as a basis of many systems, not least of which the original Symmetric relay. Having a grasp of Symmetric provides a player with transferable skills."

 

If Ron is correct about the transferability of Symmetric relays beyond Moscito (and from my very limited knowledge he is), I think that this is a powerful argument for using Symmetric relays. It will be more useful for those who learn it, and it will be more attractive to learn, both for relay newbies and for those who have played Symmetric relays in a non-Moscito system.

 

That said, however, what implications, if any, does changing the relay structure have for German Moscito? Are we opening up a can of worms?

 

Just asking.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

My reason for interest in this project is the potential to promote MOSCITO as a bidding system.

I believe that the best way to do so is building sufficient critical mass at BBO that players can easily find partners. However, I also consider it important that we maintain compatibity with the more popular variants in use elsewhere. Ideally, new MOSCITO players who join BBO should find that the online version of the system matches what they are used to.

[luis]

I have no problem using the symmetric relays approach in BBO Moscito but we'll be losing some precision. We can work on the details and produce the material quickly.

About Slam points my experience is that AKQ slam points are not as good as AK controls followed by denial cuebidding.

I think that CAB + 4d terminator + Other bids = RKCB is a nice approach but it is not a must-have to start. The general CAB + denial cuebids + other bids= to play works almost as fine as the super-efficient approach. After playing Moscito for 2 years we never found the need for RKCB instead of denial cuebidding and we did find some hands where we just bid 4c or 4d since there were not enough controls for a minor suit game and 3nt wasn't an option (they run a suit). IMO it is better to have 4d (sometimes 4c too) as a signoff than to add the 4d terminator to be able to use RKCB. But it is just my opinion and I'll be happy to see this overruled by the majority :-)

 

Luis

[inquiry]

I have no problem using the symmetric relays approach in BBO Moscito but we'll be losing some precision. We can work on the details and produce the material quickly.

About Slam points my experience is that AKQ slam points are not as good as AK controls followed by denial cuebidding.

I think that CAB + 4d terminator + Other bids = RKCB is a nice approach but it is not a must-have to start. The general CAB + denial cuebids + other bids= to play works almost as fine as the super-efficient approach. After playing Moscito for 2 years we never found the need for RKCB instead of denial cuebidding and we did find some hands where we just bid 4c or 4d since there were not enough controls for a minor suit game and 3nt wasn't an option (they run a suit). IMO it is better to have 4d (sometimes 4c too) as a signoff than to add the 4d terminator to be able to use RKCB. But it is just my opinion and I'll be happy to see this overruled by the majority :-)

 

This probably can not be a majority rule kind of thing, since the majority (the 8 to 10 people who said they are interested) don't KNOW moscito and so can't make an informed decicision.

 

It seems that we have four active moscito players who are interested in helping out....

Luis (who proposed the teaching)

Richard (hrothgar) who has the best english notes

Ron (The_hog)

Rene (moscito-d)

 

Of these, we can be sure that Luis, Richard and Ron will be active participants as they are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most active posters on this site. I think you GUYS should come up with the basic system.

 

Here is my suggestion as an interested student.

1) A document should be created and available on the web

2) A standard BBO convention card filled out and made available to the students

3) symmetric relays be used (seems to be agreed anyway)

4) 4D terminator be used (to remain consistent with other versions).

5) No forcing pass or opening relays be used

6) No 1C-1D positive being used, but rather 1D is negative.

 

With that starting point, if Luis and Richard could begin hammering out an agreement, I think we can quickly get a basic version. Perhaps after people have played the basic version, they will be willing to try more advanced versions...you guys didn't start out with what you play now for sure.

 

Ben

[luis]

I agree let's see how can we start this, Richard if you are reading would you like to write some basic notes ?

 

I think the base is:

 

1c: 15+ any with 1d as negative and 2c as balanced 9-11

1d: 10-14 no 4M

1h: 10-14 can be bal 4+h

1s: 10-14 no 4M UNBAL 4+s

1n: 10-14 bal with 4/5 spades

2c: 10-14 Both majors

2d+ whatever you want to play with your pd

 

Symmetric relays "on". I agree protability to other systems and standarization are important.

 

CAB + Denial cuebids + 4d terminator + RKCB for slam investigation

 

Non-relay responses based on Richard's notes

 

Now we should re-write the relay structure based on symmetric relays for the German-style openings...

[hrothgar]

I had to spent mos tof the weekend at work. I'm going to be in crunch mode for the next week, and won't have much time to think about things for a while.

 

Richard (who'se been at work since 5:45 this morning)