MOSCITO variant in new ACBL Open Chart

[hrothgar]

 

I'm interested in playing with a weak opening bidding system like MOSCITO, but it seems GCC doesn't allow this. So I'm wondering if there will be opportunities to play online with such a system.

 

 

It will be interesting to see which chart the ACBL's Online tournaments decide to use come November.

 

FWIW, I am playing around with an Open Chart Legal MOSCITO variant where

 

1C = Strong, artificial forcing

1D = 0+ Diamonds, unbalanced

1H = 4+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades

1S = 4+ Spades, 0-3 Hearts

1N = 11+ - 14 balanced

2C = two suited with the majors

2D = 4+ Diamonds and either (4+ Hearts or 4+ Spades) preemptive

2H = 4+ Hearts and either (4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs) preemptive

2S = 4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs or 6+ Spades preemptive

2N = Something

3C = Clubs

3D = Diamonds

[steve2005]

It will be interesting to see which chart the ACBL's Online tournaments decide to use come November.

 

FWIW, I am playing around with an Open Chart Legal MOSCITO variant where

I think you want to recheck rules on natural preempts for 2♦/2♥/2♠

I think you need to promises 5 cards in known suit to qualify as natural if preempt.

 

2N can be any two known suits, so can fill a gap. Was previously had to be both minors if artificial.

[hrothgar]

I think you want to recheck rules on natural preempts for 2♦/2♥/2♠

I think you need to promises 5 cards in known suit to qualify as natural if preempt.

 

A bid is defined as artificial is it is neither natural OR quasi natural.

 

Since we're opening on 4432 shapes (and not 5440 / 4441s) ....

 

Also, I have a bunch of discussions with members of the C&C who said that it was their intention that assumed fit methods like Ekrens should be legal at the level of the Open Chart.

[steve2005]

A bid is defined as artificial is it is neither natural OR quasi natural.

 

Also, I have a bunch of discussions with members of the C&C who said that it was their intention that assumed fit methods like Ekrens should be legal at the level of the Open Chart.

I would be very happy if Ekrens were allowed. I hope so.

" 2.*** “Natural”:

• • .
  • Any opening bid at the two-level or higher showing 5 or more cards in the suit bid.

Disallowed 7. An Artificial openingPreempt ....

Your definition is 2a) and applies to one-bids.I wish ACBL provided a list of what is allowed on each chart instead of having to interpret bridge legalize. Even if can't cover everything and just a guide.

 

[hrothgar]

I would be very happy if Ekrens were allowed. I hope so.

" 2.*** “Natural”:

• • .
  • Any opening bid at the two-level or higher showing 5 or more cards in the suit bid.

Disallowed 7. An Artificial openingPreempt ....

Your definition is 2a) and applies to one-bids.I wish ACBL provided a list of what is allowed on each chart instead of having to interpret bridge legalize. Even if can't cover everything and just a guide.

 

1. The Open Chart and Open+ Chart ban artificial preempts.

2. “Artificial” is defined as "Any call that is not Natural or Quasi-Natural"

 

In turn, this means that I can play a 2!D opening that either shows

 

1. 5+ Diamonds (with the restriction that it also has a 4+ card major)
   
2. A NT oriented hand (with the restriction that it must include 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major)
   

[steve2005]

A bid is defined as artificial is it is neither natural OR quasi natural.

 

Since we're opening on 4432 shapes (and not 5440 / 4441s) ....

 

Also, I have a bunch of discussions with members of the C&C who said that it was their intention that assumed fit methods like Ekrens should be legal at the level of the Open Chart.

I hope they are clear when they publish in the bulletin.

If the average player can't figure them out they aren't much good.

 

 

[hrothgar]

I hope they are clear when they publish in the bulletin.

If the average player can't figure them out they aren't much good.

 

I think that the rules are reasonably clear right now. (They are certainly an enormous improvement over what came before)

 

Sadly, I expect that things are likely to get worse rather than better.

My expectation is that we're going to see a never ending series of special cases and exceptions start getting carved out, most of which will never be adequately publicized or consistently applied.

[evanrmurph]

FWIW, I am playing around with an Open Chart Legal MOSCITO variant where

 

1C = Strong, artificial forcing

1D = 0+ Diamonds, unbalanced

...

 

Would this 1D be opened with at least Average Strength? I think it would have to by Disallowed Opening Bids #2, not making the grade for a natural 1D by Definitions #2-g.

 

I applaud your Open Chart Moscito efforts. It seems clear that Open Chart doesn't allow Moscito 2005 out of the box, so it'd be great to have a workable variation that doesn't deviate too far.

[hrothgar]

Would this 1D be opened with at least Average Strength? I think it would have to by Disallowed Opening Bids #2, not making the grade for a natural 1D by Definitions #2-g.

 

I applaud your Open Chart Moscito efforts. It seems clear that Open Chart doesn't allow Moscito 2005 out of the box, so it'd be great to have a workable variation that doesn't deviate too far.

 

 

The 1!D opening would need to promise average strength...

 

Regretfully, MOSCITO 2005 is based on transfer openings and the Open and Open+ chart attempts to ban these in segments of less that 7 rounds.

In practice, there is a way around this is one wanted to play fast and loose with the rules.

 

Line 3 under disallowed opening bids reads as follows

 

In segments of fewer than 6 boards, an Artificial 1-level opening bid showing Length only in a known suit other than the one opened, unless that bid is also Strong and Forcing.

 

If one wanted to, you could redefine the 1D opening as showing EITHER

 

4+ Hearts, might have a longer minor OR 10 Diamonds

 

At which point in time, the bid no longer shows length only in a known suit other than the one opened.

 

This is obviously a complete perversion of the Spirit of the regulation, but hey, this is the ACBL we're talking about...

 

FWIW, I did point said loophole out the C&C a month or so back.

If they chose not to make the appropriate changes...

[evanrmurph]

That's quite clever. It's tempting, though I'd be worried that neither opponents nor tournament directors would take kindly to it, and that ACBL will eventually get around to plugging that loophole in the convention chart language.

 

Any idea how responses will work in your Open Chart Moscito without transfer openings?

 

Btw, I just read in another thread that you helped Paul Marston develop Moscito. So it's great getting the chance to talk about this with you!

[evanrmurph]

It seems like the responder could still use a step bid to show strength. It would no longer serve to transfer but only to conserve bidding space. Is this what you had in mind?