[Dwingo]

Hummer_, on Jul 28 2005, 12:54 AM, said:

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

It is available at http://www.australia...com/moscito.pdf

Godwin

[mikestar]

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.

[whereagles]

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

[the hog]

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.

[whereagles]

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.

[Blofeld]

... but if you butt in below 2♦, the opponents still have more room than in the 2♣ auction.

I think that establishing the GF at a low level can only really be a good thing.

[whereagles]

Dunno.. this needs practice. Maybe in 10 years one style dominates.

[Free]

1♣ - 1♦ as gameforcing is superior, I don't think it's difficult to realise that. And the fact that both opener and responder can show their hand the exact same way makes it even very easy!

The only thing I wonder is why PM uses so many different possibilities for most of the semi positive responses. I mean, look at the 1NT bid: Singlesuited ♦ or 2-suited ♥-m or 3-suited with a 5 card M. You don't know anything, and if opponents intervene all opener knows is a semipositive hand and probably 1 option less tnx to the overcall. What do you do after a 1♣-(pass)-1NT-(4♣) auction?? And what if opponents psych? Similar things can happen after a 2♣ response, but there opener has a better position to handle interference I think.

I thought the whole idea of semi-positives is to immediatly show something about your hand (hopefully a Major), so intervention doesn't become a huge problem. But apparently some ambiguity seems better according to PM. I'm not convinced this semi-positive scheme is good, but apparently nobody found a perfect one yet, since every new moscito version gets a new relayscheme for semi-positives...

I also noted according to the semi positive scheme that it seems quite important to show a Major 2-suiter AND the longer suit immediatly. Showing 54+ with both Majors (unknown 5 card) seems not good enough. I wonder why, since I've also been trying to come up with a good semi positive response scheme, and I'd had in mind to use 2♣ for any Major 2-suiter (with 2♦ relay and 2M signoff).

Marston said:

Another point I would make is that Moscito is a simple system.  While it would take hundreds of pages to fully describe most systems, Moscito is fully described here in just 12 pages

You've got to love the simplicity of this 12-page system

[luis]

I like the system a lot, I've said before that a positive 1♦ over 1♣ was really an improvement and here it is.
I wish my local authorities would recognize that a transfer-opening is not that satanic or "impossible to defend" and accept the system, but I've had enough getting them to accept that a relay is not really evil and that opening 2♣ with clubs is more logical than opening without them.
If they get distracted I will try to sneak the transfer openings, maybe I should fake an ACBL statement titled "Transfer openings not really satanic".

[whereagles]

Ye heathen! Transfer openings are teh tool of teh devil!!

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Jul 25 2005, 11:49 AM, said:

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

Once upon a time, MOSCITO used a 1♦ that showed a hand type very similar to shat you are suggesting (the 1♦ opening showed any hand without a 4 card major: The primary hand types were two sutied with both minors, sinlge suited with either minor, or balanced with no 4 card majors).

This system variant was eventually retired. As I understand matters, the 1♦ was judged to be too vulnerable to preemption. (Pity, since the rest of the contructive opening bids were really sweet).

These days, one of the explicit design goals is to ensure that the constructive openings all have a know anchor suit.

[mgoetze]

Hi,

I really like the Moscito 2005 draft and would love to try it out with anyone willing to put up with my mistakes.

Meanwhile, some questions (I'm sure more will come up as I continue to study the system):
1. So, uh, what exactly happens after a 1NT opening bid? Can I tack on pretty much anything like Stayman and 4-suit transfers?
2. I'm pretty confused about my rebid after 1♦-1♥ with various shapes of Red 2-Suiters (e.g. 5-5), maybe someone could clear it up for me?
3. Assuming the 2♦ opening is some kind of multi, would there be any particularily sensible strong options to include (to keep opponents on their toes)? Or is the 2♦ opening something else entirely which I just missed?

Regards,
Michael

[Free]

1. you can play whatever structure you like.
2. 2♦ shows a 5+♥ and 4+♦. 1NT shows exactly a 4 card ♥, so a canapé opening.
3. all strong hands are opened 1♣, there's no need to make your 2♦ opening forcing by adding strong versions (when it's only weak, you can pass this).

[mgoetze]

Thanks for the clarifications. I don't like the "mini-multi", though, as I consider it too easy to defend against.... am more inclined to move the 5332s down a step (then step to ask for the doubleton, and have 2NT natural and invitational), and use 2♠ as a weak 2 in spades (which is more useful than the weak 2 in hearts anyway) or some kind of minor-suit preempt (though since I don't need a natural 2NT...)

After all, preempting is about stealing bidding space from the opponents, not giving them more of it.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Jul 29 2005, 11:20 PM, said:

Once upon a time, MOSCITO used a 1♦ that showed a (...) opening showed any hand without a 4 card major

(...) This system variant was eventually retired. As I understand matters, the 1♦ was judged to be too vulnerable to preemption.

Hum.. I played a strong club variant where 1D was balanced no 4 card maj OR 5+ in a minor. That's even more indefinite than what I was proposing, and it was playable.

The idea of always having an anchor suit doesn't seem that important to me, but I can understand some think otherwise.

[ArcLight]

It is available at http://www.australia...com/moscito.pdf

I went to: http://www.australianbridge.com/

but don't see it.

[inquiry]

ArcLight, on Aug 22 2005, 01:37 PM, said:

Where is the download of the Moscito booklet?

I went to: http://www.australianbridge.com/

but don't see it.

REad the entire thread.. the correct link is given in this post...

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=80417

[akhare]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Jul 29 2005, 06:20 PM'] [quote name='whereagles' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:49 AM']
These days, one of the explicit design goals is to ensure that the constructive openings all have a know anchor suit. [/quote]
Richard,

Do you reason for behind opting for a known anchor suit? It's my own intuitive guess that it's better to have one than not. I have been resisting some proposed system changes that create more openings w/ no anchor suits on that basis alone and would like to have some concrete backing .

Atul

[Free]

The reasons are quite obvious: when you have competition, at least you know a suit and are able to deal with it a lot better. Because of the low HCP-range, you'll get a lot of competition for sure, so it's better to be well prepared.

[hrothgar]

[quote name='akhare' date='Sep 4 2005, 10:07 AM'] [quote name='hrothgar' date='Jul 29 2005, 06:20 PM'] [quote name='whereagles' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:49 AM']
These days, one of the explicit design goals is to ensure that the constructive openings all have a know anchor suit. [/QUOTE]
Richard,

Do you reason for behind opting for a known anchor suit? It's my own intuitive guess that it's better to have one than not. I have been resisting some proposed system changes that create more openings w/ no anchor suits on that basis alone and would like to have some concrete backing .

Atul [/quote]
Raising partner brings me great joy and happiness...
Negative doubles are a good thing...
The opponents have a nasty habit of overcalling...