DenisO Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 The first draft of Paul Marston's new booklet on Moscito is now available as a free download from: http://www.australianbridge.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Great read, thanks for the link! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 ahem.. oops mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 A few questions: - Does a semipositive response to 1♣ create a forcing pass situation? Most of the semipositives are quite specific so they must be easy to deal with whether you play forcing pass or not, but the 1♥ response is somewhat nebolous so you might need forcing pass. Now 15+6 HCPs might be too little to estabish a forcing pass, at least at IMPs. - 1♣-1♦ seems rather sensitive to interference. Wouldn't it be better to make some of the semipositives (semi)-positive? - The way opener or responder shows shape after a 1♣ opening are quite difficult to memorize. I don't see any symmetry except that1♣-1♦1♥- bla bla blais identical to1♣-1♦bla bla blaDid I miss something? - It's not mentioned what responder should do after a limited opening with less than inivitational values. In particular, is a raise to two of opener's major purely destructive? Is it a good strategy to pass with all weak hands, even at red vs white? - On page 8 there is an auction that I don't understand:1♣-1♦1♥-1NT2♦?-2NT3♣-3♦3♥-3♠etc. Why does opener bid 2♦? What does it mean as opposed to 2♣ which would have been the normal step bid, I suppose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 Actually, what is the 2D opener? Did I miss that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 A few questions: As I have played this, I'll endeavour to answer: - Does a semipositive response to 1♣ create a forcing pass situation? No Helene! Most of the semipositives are quite specific so they must be easy to deal with whether you play forcing pass or not, but the 1♥ response is somewhat nebolous so you might need forcing pass. Now 15+6 HCPs might be too little to estabish a forcing pass, at least at IMPs. - 1♣-1D seems rather sensitive to interference. Wouldn't it be better to make some of the semipositives (semi)-positive? The fact that you are in a gf situation helps, actually. Prefer this to playing nebulous positives. - The way opener or responder shows shape after a 1♣ opening are quite difficult to memorize. I don't see any symmetry except that1♣-1D1♥- bla bla blais identical to1♣-1Dbla bla blaDid I miss something? No it is a process of memorization - It's not mentioned what responder should do after a limited opening with less than inivitational values. In particular, is a raise to two of opener's major purely destructive? Is it a good strategy to pass with all weak hands, even at red vs white? No, the raise is constructive; with a weak hand just pass - On page 8 there is an auction that I don't understand: Why does opener bid 2D? What does it mean as opposed to 2♣ which would have been the normal step bid, I suppos I'll ask Paul, but suspect this is a misprint. It may be a way of showing no slam interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 There are a couple of things that interested me in this document. First of all, the 2M opening bid to show 5-3-3-2 hand - I'm sure they must have their reasons for playing this, but it looks downright ugly to me. And secondly, it seems they're now showing the minor first with 6m-4M patterns. I'm pleased to see this, because it looks like an admission that canape 4-card majors doesn't completely solve the problem of the 2♣ opening in strong club systems. PS. [Completely off-topic] Has anyone else here in the UK noticed that the TV presenter Jimmy Carr is a perfect lookalike for this smiley: :rolleyes: (when he's laughing, that is...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 Whereagles - I suspect that a 2♦ opener is a mini-multi, but I may be wrong. Helene - 1♣:1♦ is a bit susceptible to interference, but it has to be sound - if you go jumping around just because you've got a 5 card suit (as you might if the strong club had been opened on your right) then the forcing pass will clobber you. The page 8 auction looks correct if the 2♦ bid had been 2♣, so I'm fairly sure it is a misprint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 David - Paul chose to use these 2M openings after reading Karl Schneider's post on RGB: "My simulation work has shown that opening 11-12 5M332 with 1N is clearly inferior to opening 1M. When partner has less than 10 points, even a 5-2 fit in the major and playing 2M is superior to playing 1N. A 10-12 point notrump should not be considered a "constructive" bid [i play it myself] but rather a pre-emptive bid. As such, your hand should be reasonably "constrained" shapewise and not contain a 5card major. This allows your partner the ability to best find a "safe" resting spot and focus on his own 4 and 5-card suits. Any time your combined holdings are 21 points or less, it is generally preferable to play at 2M instead of in 1N with a 5-2 fit or better. By "hiding" your 5card major within mini 1N opening, your are destined to play an inferior MP contract." I wasn't persuaded :rolleyes: The 4M6m issue seems to be one of partscore versus game. Opening the major can lead you to the wrong part-score, opening the minor can miss your game in the major fit. Please note that if the 1M opener is either 4 or 6 cards, you can get away with making 3 card raises less frequently, meaning that you are less likely to reach the wrong part-score on these hands B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 David - Paul chose to use these 2M openings after reading Karl Schneider's post on RGB:Oh yes, I remember this now. He started off with some general question about 5-card majors in a weak no-trump, then after a few replies said something like, "OK, you've persuaded me to open 2M with 5-3-3-2". :rolleyes: I have to say, I think if people knew that was the alternative, they wouldn't have been so happy to say they disliked opening 1NT with a 5-card major. And this makes no sense to me at all:A 10-12 point notrump should not be considered a "constructive" bid [i play it myself] but rather a pre-emptive bid. As such, your hand should be reasonably "constrained" shapewise and not contain a 5card major.I agree completely with the first of those two sentences, but I don't think the second follows logically from the first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 Agree with all that David. The mini NT being preemptive instead of constructive is a reason to make it off-shape; The reason not to is that frequently you are in a part-score battle and you succeed only in preempting yourself out of your major suit fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 Ditto Mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I don't think a 2M opening shows a 5332, he merely states that he opens 2M with such a hand. Probably, 2M can be opened with other types of hands as well. Anyway, it looks like a cool system. Hands up everyone who thinks the new BBO-advanced standard should be Moscito ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I don't think a 2M opening shows a 5332, he merely states that he opens 2M with such a hand. Probably, 2M can be opened with other types of hands as well.It doesn't look like it - they play that a 2NT response "asks for the doubleton", which seems to indicate they are expecting exactly 5-3-3-2 shape.Anyway, it looks like a cool system. Hands up everyone who thinks the new BBO-advanced standard should be Moscito :) ;) Actually it seems that the system hasn't really settled down to a "final" version yet. Maybe once there is a standard version of Moscito, it will begin to catch on. But it's not yet at the stage where you can sit down and play a version with a new partner and be confident that you will understand each other. (I've tried ...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I think moscito should have his 1S opener turned into 6+m or minor 2-suiter. But I guess it's the way it is to make it ACBL legal or something. Having 1S for the minor(s) would free up the whole 2 level for preempts. AS IT SHOULD BE ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 I think moscito should have his 1S opener turned into 6+m or minor 2-suiter. But I guess it's the way it is to make it ACBL legal or something. The WBF defines an opening that promises length in either of two suits as a HUM. The exception being a nebolous minor suit opening if the other minor is strong and artificial. So your nebolous 1♠ opening would be a HUM, I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Indeed...the system is nowhere near being ACBL legal. I think there are quite a few benefits to keeping the club single suiter out of 1S anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted July 25, 2005 Report Share Posted July 25, 2005 Yes, there are. But the loss is far greater (no weak 2C). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummer_ Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 The link on the Austrailian Bridge site does not seem to be there anymore. Can some one email me a copy? thanks mike mmhansen44@hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenisO Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 The link on the Austrailian Bridge site does not seem to be there anymore. Can some one email me a copy? thanks mike mmhansen44@hotmail.comFile sent - but there may have been a problem - let me know if you get it. Denis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwingo Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 The link on the Austrailian Bridge site does not seem to be there anymore. Can some one email me a copy? thanks mike mmhansen44@hotmail.comIt is available at http://www.australianbridge.com/moscito.pdf Godwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 Moscito 2005 looks rather intersting. The 1♦ positive and the way it lets the 1♣ opener take control with 1♥ or show his hand in the same way as responder would (reducing memory load) will allow devastating slam accuracy in uncontested auctions, plus excellent concealment when a fit is found early on minimal game hands. Competiton will raise issues, but you can't be much worse off than after intervention over a 2/1 2♣ opener--you know game values are present and forcing passes apply. Showing shape as soon as possible on semipositives seems good as well. I really like the 1♠ negative--slightly premptive as compared to 1♦ negative and more tightly defined. The idea of 1♦ positive in response to a big 1♣ is not new. Goren had it in an appendix to his Precision book--apparently some Precisionistas were experimenting with the idea back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 1C-1D as gf is risky (bidding very low, no suit bid, gf - a haven for 4th player to enter), but perhaps one day I'll play it like that... lol :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 1C 1D of course as most will realise, has little risk and is optimal. The fact that you are in a gf situation means that over 4th hand intervention, Xs can be penalties, passes forcing and bids show reasonable suits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted July 28, 2005 Report Share Posted July 28, 2005 Well, it is safer for 4th hand to butt-in in 1C pass 1D ?? than in the similar gf situation in 2/1 or sayc 2C ?? That's the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.