[32519]

I have been browsing the forums and found a lot of very interesting posts/threads on Forcing Pass Systems and Moscito. The arguments were sufficient to convince me to experiment with both. My regular partner is an extremely lazy learner but is willing to experiment along with me.

I found a 10 page article on Bridge With Dan's website dealing with Moscito http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/
Thus far I have been unable to find a more recent version of Forcing Pass Systems (the one I did find dates back to 2001). Can anyone direct me to a newer version. Even better, upload your own latest version to this site for the benefit of anyone else wishing to experiment.

Which leaves the question to be answered: Forcing Pass Systems versus Moscito. Which system is better, and why?

P.S. If anyone can upload a detailed version of Moscito as well it will be hugely appreciated. I have absolutely no idea as to the completeness of the 10 page copy on Dan's site.

Thanking you all in advance for your assistance.

[Siegmund]

You will find some very complete system descriptions of that flavor on Mark Abraham's systems page - not much 'natural', but a lot of strong-pass or strong-club systems featuring 1D=4+ hearts and 1H=4+ spades with relays afterward.

"Better?" I'm not sure we know - and not sure we will know as long as they are played by so few people.

[blackshoe]

And forcing pass systems will continue to be played by few people so long as so many RAs ban them. For example, you cannot play forcing pass at any level in the ACBL.

[32519]

My interest in these two systems started when I came across this thread: Forcing Pass Systems: Should they be allowed? http://www.bridgebas...g-pass-systems/
The thread received an amazing 20340 views and 802 replies. That is possibly a forum record?

Other threads included:
Forcing Pass Systems: Do they work? http://www.bridgebas...g-pass-systems/
Some Thoughts on Forcing Passes http://www.bridgebas...forcing-passes/

Moscito wasn't nearly as popular.
Moscito questions http://www.bridgebas...cito-questions/

Both still sound like fun systems and I intend putting in the time to learn them.

[S2000magic]

Moscito started out as a forcing pass system, but was changed to a forcing club system so that it could be used in more tournaments.

[nigel_k]

I played forcing pass internationally but it was back in the early 90s and it's much harder under current rules. You would definitely want a strong club system to use with the same partner in events where forcing pass isn't allowed and make the two systems as similar as possible to aid memory.

In your position I would start by learning symmetric relay in a strong club framework. This will keep you busy for a while. Obviously many people play strong club without relays but I think you need the gains from relay methods to offset the other disadvantages.

Also, I would not use the Moscito opening structure and would instead do something like this:
1♣ 15+ any
1♦ 10-14, 4+♥ not balanced
1♥ 10-14, 4+♠ denies 4♥ not balanced
1♠ 10-14, 4+♦ no major not balanced
1NT 12-14 balanced
2♣ 10-14, 6+♣ no major

This still gets the majors in early and puts you in a good position to follow up with relays. Everything has an anchor suit which means you can play it in more places. But you may need something simpler depending on the rules where you live.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-04, 11:09, said:

And forcing pass systems will continue to be played by few people so long as so many RAs ban them. For example, you cannot play forcing pass at any level in the ACBL.

Same with the EBU. In fact no HUMs are allowed at any level in the EBU with the exception of one invented by the editor of the Orange Book...

It's a real shame about Forcing Passes. Bridge systems should be allowed to live and die by their merits. Are they too hard to expect people to defend against? Well, that's what they say in the ACBL about the Multi 2♦! Obviously it's a vicious circle -- nobody plays FP, so nobody has learnt to defend against is, it isn't allowed because nobody knows how to defend against it, so nobody plays it, etc.

I wonder if it is feasible for various SOs to hold occasional "anything goes" competitions. Would be a blast!

[Free]

Since MOSCITO is a modified version of forcing pass, as a result of system regulations, I think it's safe to assume forcing pass is better. But there are a lot of versions around of both MOSCITO and forcing pass, so it's difficult to compare. MOSCITO can easily be played as forcing pass, and imo it's a clear improvement:
pass = 13+, any (moscito opens 1♣)
1♣ = 8-12, 4+♥ (moscito opens 1♦)
1♦ = 8-12, 4+♠ (moscito opens 1♥)
1♥ = 0-7(8), any (moscito passes)
1♠ = 8-12, 4+♦, may have longer ♣
1NT = 9-12, balanced
2♣ = 8-12, 6+♣

Because strong hands are passed, you get an extra step, which makes it possible to lower the hcp range. The point ranges are 8-12 instead of 10-14, which makes them more frequent. And you get an extra step to start a natural auction instead of a relay auction.

[Flameous]

Free presented many of the differences between FP version and strong club based version of Moscito.
However for reasons of comparing which is better, little was said. I'll try to give a couple of most important points.

Pass (13+ or so) vs. 1♣ opening (15+)

Obvious advantage of the pass is that it saves one step and loses in definition only a little. This loss of definition
might also work to your advantage, as it comes more likely your opponents have game of their own and must dedicate
bids for constructive purposes instead of destructive. This point has been debated a lot for optimum strong club opening range
but I don't think there is any conclusion. I think the advantages of stronger opening are obvious so I'm not listing them.

Fert vs. pass

I'd only consider using either 1♦ or 1♥ for fert. I guess the best would be to change according to zones.
I have used 1♥ fert and for what I can say, its pre-emptive effect is huge and it's really hard to defend against.
You essentially have to defend against it like opponent passed but you are losing two steps of bidding space. Occasionally
opps don't have anywhere to run and you can kill them but during all the time I have played FP (not much, but I guess more than most),
it has happened only once.
Of course your own constructive bidding is also hell after your fert which has caused much more trouble for me. This is related to that
you must make your openings very light to take the load off from your fert so that it doesn't start to work against you. This is
of course usually to your advantage. However there will be a lot of overlapping with openings and pre-empts, something that needs to
be accurately defined in partnership to avoid problems coming from having two openings for same hands.

Loss of pass outs

You just can't have them, this means that you will create automatic swings on some boards. This can work to your advantage or not, at least it
adds the strain in long matches when you don't get any easy skip boards.
And the one time your partner forgets to pass instead of fert or something... well it's something to remember Of course this isn't
a real problem for anyone who has been playing FP for ages, but when you are tired and losing focus, it's something that can and has happened.


I could ramble some more about two way passes and semiforcing passes, but that'd already be totally off topic and I guess this wall of text is enough.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2011-December-04, 12:41, said:

My interest in these two systems started when I came across this thread: Forcing Pass Systems: Should they be allowed? http://www.bridgebas...g-pass-systems/
The thread received an amazing 20340 views and 802 replies. That is possibly a forum record?

Other threads included:
Forcing Pass Systems: Do they work? http://www.bridgebas...g-pass-systems/
Some Thoughts on Forcing Passes http://www.bridgebas...forcing-passes/

Moscito wasn't nearly as popular.
Moscito questions http://www.bridgebas...cito-questions/

Both still sound like fun systems and I intend putting in the time to learn them.

Few comments:

1. The "forcing pass thread" is largely about ACBL system regulations regarding transfer openings. I'd be hard pressed to make any credible comments regarding the popularity of MOSCITO versus forcing pass based on the length of these threads.

2. As others have noted, the entire reason that MOSCITO was developed was that system regulations effectively banned strong pass systems.

3. I arrogantly believe that my MOSCITO notes are probably the best resource out there to learn MOSCITO / Symmetric Relay. If I were recommending a course of study for MSOCITO, I'd suggest that you start by playing Blue Club, but graft the original symmetric relay responses over the strong club opening. Don't use any kind of relays over the limited openings. Use the original BTC 1NT opening. Starting with Blue Club will accomplish three goals

(A) You'll be able to practice with a canape style major suit opening system
(B) You'll be able to ease into relay methods
© You get to practice with a 1D opening that (pretty much) shows 4+ cards

When you feel comfortable with this style, introduce the following changes

(A) Lower the strength of the 1C opening to 15 (upgrading exceptional 14 counts as appropriate)
(B) Switch to the transfer opening structure (1D = Hearts, 1H = Spades, 1S = Unbalanced with Diamonds)
© Add relay's over the limited openings

Keep the original relay responses over 1C (adjusting the strength for a positive as appropriate)

Last, but not least, if you want to you can switch to the more modern response structure over the strong club with 1C - 1D = GF and most direct responses showing semi-positives.

[32519]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-05, 06:49, said:

Few comments:


3. I arrogantly believe that my MOSCITO notes are probably the best resource out there to learn MOSCITO / Symmetric Relay.

Richard I really appreciate this. May I be so bold as to ask you to forward a copy of your notes to my e-mail address: andrew32519@gmail.com
I could use Paul Marston's booklet. However the first paragraph of his document clearly states that it is a first draft.

Regards

Andrew Lee

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2011-December-05, 09:02, said:

Richard I really appreciate this. May I be so bold as to ask you to forward a copy of your notes to my e-mail address: andrew32519@gmail.com
I could use Paul Marston's booklet. However the first paragraph of his document clearly states that it is a first draft.

Regards

Andrew Lee

Happy to obliged, but it may need to wait till tomorrow
(I'm at work right now and won't be headed home until pretty late tonight)

Free might be able to send you something faster...
(If so, please email me a copy as well so I can get it saved on my work system)

[whereagles]

My opinion: most forcing pass systems are basically strong club systems with a swap between the 'pass' and '1♣' steps. I don't see any real advantage in making 'pass' the strong call. That little extra step is useful but it seems to me that being caught speeding in the fert is probably a much greater concern, especially vulnerable.

I guess you COULD try something like 'pass = 0-7 or any 16+' Then the guy in 3rd seat wouldn't be so pressed to bid. Hmmm... I just got an idea for follow-ups:

Pass (pass) ..??

1♦ = I got a strong club of my own and I know you're broke. Just show me your suits, pls.
1♣ = I'm broke. Now opener bids 1M as if it went 1C-1D in a normal club system or 1♦ to say "red alert, pass was a fert.. take evasive measures!!"

The good thing about the dual pass is that 2nd seat might want to evade complications and just use his normal system instead of trap-passing the strong pass. Then you could have auctions like

Pass* (1♥) dbl (pass)
n♠

where n♠ is a preemptive bid, as advancer is the 0-7 region (with 16+ he just cues).

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on 2011-December-05, 10:02, said:

My opinion: most forcing pass systems are basically strong club systems with a swap between the 'pass' and '1♣' steps. I don't see any real advantage in making 'pass' the strong call. That little extra step is useful but it seems to me that being caught speeding in the fert is probably a much greater concern, especially vulnerable.

Your central premise is wrong.

The key difference between forcing pass systems and strong club systems is the strength shown by the limited opening bids.
(I'm using HCPs for convenience)

• Playing a strong pass system, the limited opening bids show somewhere in the range of 7+ <--> 12- HCPS
  
• Playing an aggressive strong club system, the limited opening bids show somewhere between 9+ and 15 HCPS

Consequently, the range for the strong opening bid shifts from 15+ HCP all the way down to 12+ HCPS

If you don't believe this change impacts the amount of bidding space you require then I don't know what to say other than to suggest that you might not want to participate in these sorts of threads...

(There are also lots of fun games that you can play trying to achieve parallelism between your opening structure and your responses to the strong pass.
However, the big motivation is the need for additional bidding space following a strong opening...)

Oh yeah, as a final note: Other than simplistic examples, I'm not aware of many storng pass systems that used 1C as their fert...

[Cthulhu D]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-05, 09:16, said:

Happy to obliged, but it may need to wait till tomorrow
(I'm at work right now and won't be headed home until pretty late tonight)

Free might be able to send you something faster...
(If so, please email me a copy as well so I can get it saved on my work system)

Would it be possible to obtain a copy as well please? Mostly for my own intrest. cthulhu.dreams@gmail.com

Regards,

Cthulhu.

[Free]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-05, 10:12, said:

Your central premise is wrong.

The key difference between forcing pass systems and strong club systems is the strength shown by the limited opening bids.
(I'm using HCPs for convenience)

• Playing a strong pass system, the limited opening bids show somewhere in the range of 7+ <--> 12- HCPS
  
• Playing an aggressive strong club system, the limited opening bids show somewhere between 9+ and 15 HCPS

Consequently, the range for the strong opening bid shifts from 15+ HCP all the way down to 12+ HCPS

If you don't believe this change impacts the amount of bidding space you require then I don't know what to say other than to suggest that you might not want to participate in these sorts of threads...

(There are also lots of fun games that you can play trying to achieve parallelism between your opening structure and your responses to the strong pass.
However, the big motivation is the need for additional bidding space following a strong opening...)

Oh yeah, as a final note: Other than simplistic examples, I'm not aware of many storng pass systems that used 1C as their fert...

That's also one of the reasons why a strong 1♦ opening usually is a bit stronger than our average strong 1♣ opening: loss of space. I haven't seen any strong ♦ systems with a 15+HCP 1♦ opening, while this range is quite ok for a 1♣ opening.

1♣ as fert is ridiculous, opps can just play stolen bid.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-05, 10:12, said:

(...) I don't know what to say other than to suggest that you might not want to participate in these sorts of threads...

Well, contrary to you I know pretty well what to say.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

ehehehehe.....

[whereagles]

Free, on 2011-December-06, 05:01, said:

1♣ as fert is ridiculous, opps can just play stolen bid.

As you know, the fert is the replacement for 'pass'. Whatever else you do with it is your choice. One might want to try and stay out of trouble and open the fert as low as you can or give it some semi-preemptive meaning.

The tape-relay system had a low 1C as fert.

In the opposite range there was an old strong pass system where the 1NT opener was either a 0-7 fert or any 18-21. The opening bid scheme of this system (pass included) was however technically wrong as a whole and thus it never got popular, even within SP systems.

[Statto]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-04, 16:26, said:

It's a real shame about Forcing Passes. Bridge systems should be allowed to live and die by their merits. Are they too hard to expect people to defend against? Well, that's what they say in the ACBL about the Multi 2♦! Obviously it's a vicious circle -- nobody plays FP, so nobody has learnt to defend against is, it isn't allowed because nobody knows how to defend against it, so nobody plays it, etc.

I wonder if it is feasible for various SOs to hold occasional "anything goes" competitions. Would be a blast!

Totally agree. Many clubs run numerous events per week to cater for all tastes, and the only thing preventing them holding a regular HUM-allowed event would seem to be the RAs (and perhaps lack of demand). It's said that the EBU only allowed Multi 2♦ because so many people were playing it by the time they'd caught up. The OB is carefully worded to allow it, and also strong ♣/♦ systems, which if invented today would probably not be allowed. Common defences to these systems have evolved (e.g. Dixon, Truscott). Practised Pships will also have agreed general defensive methods to unusual systems, as they will have to the plethora of possibilities for overcalls of 1NT. (Though the RAs are there to protect the innocent.)

Interesting thread. I've learnt about symmetric relays. Playing a strong ♣ system, opps will want stick an oar in so that they know their fit and push the level high before we're anywhere close to knowing the shape of P's hand. SRs would seem to exacerbate this...?

[whereagles]

Well, I for one agree with banning them in lesser events. But once you get past regional level, I fully agree they should be allowed.

Lower events are to promote the game. We mussn't scare off customers, if you see what I mean lol. As soon as people start to get enthousiastic about the game, they *will* want to learn to play and defend strong pass systems and other HUMs.