[DenisO]

The first draft of Paul Marston's new booklet on Moscito is now available as a free download from:

http://www.australianbridge.com/

[han]

Great read, thanks for the link!

[whereagles]

ahem.. oops mistake

[helene_t]

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 that
1♣-1♦
1♥- bla bla bla
is identical to
1♣-1♦
bla bla bla
Did 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♥-1NT
2♦?-2NT
3♣-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?

[whereagles]

Actually, what is the 2D opener? Did I miss that?

[the hog]

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 that
1♣-1D
1♥- bla bla bla
is identical to
1♣-1D
bla bla bla
Did 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.

[david_c]

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: (when he's laughing, that is...)

[MickyB]

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.

[MickyB]

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

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

[david_c]

MickyB, on Jul 23 2005, 02:13 PM, said:

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". 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:

KWSchneider on rgb said:

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.

[MickyB]

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.

[keylime]

Ditto Mike.

[helene_t]

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

[david_c]

helene_t, on Jul 25 2005, 08:41 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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 ...)

[whereagles]

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

[helene_t]

whereagles, on Jul 25 2005, 10:49 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.

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.

[MickyB]

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.

[whereagles]

Yes, there are. But the loss is far greater (no weak 2C).

[Hummer_]

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

[DenisO]

Hummer_, on Jul 27 2005, 08:24 PM, 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

File sent - but there may have been a problem - let me know if you get it.

Denis