[olien]

money!

1♦ = 10-14 4♠ <4♥ OR any hand with 8+♦

[olien]

So, we made a slight change and tried it out tonight. However, it didn't come up, and so we have no idea if it's better or worse. We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it) The opening structure we're trying now is:

1♣ 15+ HCP any dist
1♦ 10-14 HCP 4+♦ not balanced, may have MUCH longer ♣
1♥ 10-14 HCP, 5+♥ unless 4♥-5♣ or 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5
1♠ 10-14 HCP, always 5+♠
1NT 12-14 HCP balanced, most balanced dist. allowed
2♣ 10-14 HCP, 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4+♠, denies 4-card ♦
2♦ weak 2 in a major
2♥ weak, 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 majors
2♠ any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt
2NT weak 6/5+ majors (any better recommendations would be welcome
3♣ weak 5/5+ minors
3♦ sound preempt
3M standard preempt


After 1♣ opening, we use the "new" 1♣ structure (1♦ positive, 1♠ double neg, etc)

After 1♦ opening, we use 1NT as the GF relay, 1M natural F1, 2m natural NF

After 1♥ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (is 1NT better?), 2NT as INV raise

After 1♠ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (again, would 1NT be preferred?), 2NT as INV raise

After 2♣ opening, 2♦ is the INV+ relay, and the continuations are as below:
...2♥=1-suited, now 2♠=GF relay, 2NT/3♣=INV
...2♠=5+♣ 4+♠, now 2NT=GF relay, 3♣/3♠=INV
...2NT/3♣=minimum hands with 4+♥
...3♦+=maximum hands with 4+♥

Dunno if this is much better, moving the "problem" to 2♣, but we're more likely to want to compete when our suit is ♠, but if our suit is ♣, the opponents may be able to out-compete us anyways.

Input would be welcome. Thanks

[mgoetze]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 01:14, said:

2♦ weak 2 in a major
2♥ weak, 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 majors
2♠ any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt
2NT weak 6/5+ majors (any better recommendations would be welcome
3♣ weak 5/5+ minors
3♦ sound preempt
3M standard preempt

Personally I would move the club-or-diamond-preempt to 2NT, play 2♠ as spades and a minor, and divvy up the 65+ majors openings amongst 2♥, 1M and 4M.

[straube]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 01:14, said:

So, we made a slight change and tried it out tonight. However, it didn't come up, and so we have no idea if it's better or worse. We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it) The opening structure we're trying now is:

1♣ 15+ HCP any dist
1♦ 10-14 HCP 4+♦ not balanced, may have MUCH longer ♣
1♥ 10-14 HCP, 5+♥ unless 4♥-5♣ or 4=4=1=4/4=4=0=5
1♠ 10-14 HCP, always 5+♠
1NT 12-14 HCP balanced, most balanced dist. allowed
2♣ 10-14 HCP, 6+♣ or 5+♣ 4+♠, denies 4-card ♦
2♦ weak 2 in a major
2♥ weak, 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 majors
2♠ any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt
2NT weak 6/5+ majors (any better recommendations would be welcome
3♣ weak 5/5+ minors
3♦ sound preempt
3M standard preempt


After 1♣ opening, we use the "new" 1♣ structure (1♦ positive, 1♠ double neg, etc)

After 1♦ opening, we use 1NT as the GF relay, 1M natural F1, 2m natural NF

After 1♥ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (is 1NT better?), 2NT as INV raise

After 1♠ opening, we use 2♣ as the GF relay (again, would 1NT be preferred?), 2NT as INV raise

After 2♣ opening, 2♦ is the INV+ relay, and the continuations are as below:
...2♥=1-suited, now 2♠=GF relay, 2NT/3♣=INV
...2♠=5+♣ 4+♠, now 2NT=GF relay, 3♣/3♠=INV
...2NT/3♣=minimum hands with 4+♥
...3♦+=maximum hands with 4+♥

Dunno if this is much better, moving the "problem" to 2♣, but we're more likely to want to compete when our suit is ♠, but if our suit is ♣, the opponents may be able to out-compete us anyways.

Input would be welcome. Thanks

Seems pretty good. Haven't done the math yet. 1H has too many hand types to relay with 2C and using 1N to relay will leave you stitched when you have a constructive response with no fit and no spades. Still think 1D is underutilized, but that's a tradeoff you've decided to make. I keep wondering if you'd do better with a 1D opening that promised only three diamonds (and a distributional hand). I'd rather open 1D than 2C with KQxx x Axx Qxxxx

What does 1D-1M, 2C show in terms of respective minor suit length? How about 1H-1X, 2C?
Would you consider giving up 2H to show 5H/4C?

[Free]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 01:14, said:

We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it)

May I suggest an alternative name, just so you don't confuse everyone with what MOSCITO really is? I suggest mOSCNITO: minor Oriented Strong Club, Not In Transfer Opening (this is not a type, minors aren't written with a capital letter).

Otherwise I guess we're going to have to start playing OLIEN-two's (Only Losers Ignore Established Naming conventions). It's valid only when V and described as 2X = 0-5HCP with any 4333 with exactly 3X, so the 4 card suit is unknown. I'll even advocate the name, so everyone will put the link between you and this ridiculous system. Hell, perhaps I'll even write an article on my blog about it.

[gwnn]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 23:28, said:

What about other players who haven't heard about some prior related email rejecting this treatment and ask my question innocently and are told they are allowed to play the methods - is if fair or rational that I should not be allowed to play the same system but they can? Perhaps more to the point - who says that if there are contradictory rulings on legality that one should err on the side of rejection? After all, if a regulator tells you it's ok, how can you reasonably say it's not ok? It's his job to think about negative inferences and whether such methods should be allowed, as I'm sure not everyone who asks about their pet method will give a full list of all possible shapes for each bid. It's called doing his job. As for "leaving out an important part of the method", do recall that negative inferences are not alertable (such as failure to support double) and this has been an established policy for some time now, so I'm not sure why you think I should be calling everyone's attention to it when even my opponents at the table aren't entitled to that protection by the rules.

Just to be clear, I am not proposing any non-disclosure to my table opponents, but merely that I should be able to ask any question I want in any way that I want of the regulators and that I should be able to rely on their answer. To have any other system of clarifying regulations makes no sense at all. Frankly I don't even know why people ask the regulators anything in the first place, since the legality of your methods are all up to the arbitrary ruling you'll get from your local director if someone complains.

(emphasis mine) Do you really think describing an opening which shows 4+ spades as "0+ diamonds" can be done innocently?

[Free]

rbforster, on 2010-December-21, 18:14, said:

Sure they do, it just depends on how you ask them. Give them my opening bid structure and offer 1♦ as "0+ catchall, 10-14 points" and I'm sure they'll say it's legal. Don't ask questions you don't want the answers for and you'll be fine. That's really all I have to say about this, since we all know it's futile to expect either rational or consistent answers from the ACBL on matters of conventions. Play what you want and have your good excuses ready.

I'm a bit late but this is blatant cheating. The fact that you don't even want to admit this, and still don't see a problem with it makes it even worse. You completely ignore the concept of full disclosure. And what makes you think that with approval of "1♦ = 0+ catchall, 10-14 points" you'll be allowed to play "1♦ = 0+D, 4+♠, 10-14 points"? You don't open any hand with 1♦ anymore, which makes it no longer a catchall. It's a completely different opening, and people will defend completely different against it as well.

[the hog]

However, it didn't come up, and so we have no idea if it's better or worse. We made the structure less majors first, and have decided to still call it MOSCITO but change the meaning of the M to minor (sarcasm for those of you that didn't pick up on it).

Well if you did this in a serious competition against me, I would have the director at the table so fast your ears would spin and your glasses would fall off.
You announce Moscito and I automatically assume 4 card Majors, often canape, because that is what Moscito is, and I don't ask alerts because you probably don't know your system. As a matter of fact, I would go further and accuse you of cheating by deliberately attempting to mislead your opponents. And yes, you are a blatant cheat in doing this!

I had a similar situation when I played against an international a few years ago who announced "Polish Club". It turns out 1C was always 16+ and there were many differences. They were fined just as you would be.

[olien]

straube, on 2010-December-23, 03:38, said:

Seems pretty good. Haven't done the math yet. 1H has too many hand types to relay with 2C and using 1N to relay will leave you stitched when you have a constructive response with no fit and no spades. Still think 1D is underutilized, but that's a tradeoff you've decided to make. I keep wondering if you'd do better with a 1D opening that promised only three diamonds (and a distributional hand). I'd rather open 1D than 2C with KQxx x Axx Qxxxx

What does 1D-1M, 2C show in terms of respective minor suit length? How about 1H-1X, 2C?
Would you consider giving up 2H to show 5H/4C?

We actually have enough room after 1♥-2♣ to relay out all of the hand types, but its pretty cramped:

1♥-2♣:
2♦ = 4+♥ 4+♣ or 3-suited
2♥ = 6+♥
2♠ = 5+♥ 4♦
2NT = 5+♥ 5+♦
3♣+ = 5+♥ 4(+)♠ (5-6s end up at 4♣, don't get to show 4-7s since no 5-5 step)

After 1♥-2♣// 2♦-2♥:
2♠ = 5+♥ 4♣
2NT = 5+♥ 5+♣
3♣ = 4♥-5♣ (either 3415/1435/2425)
3♦ = 4414 or 4405
3♥+ = 5♥(440)

Also, wasn't there an earlier thread regarding 1♥-1♠ being like a forcing NT w/o 5♠, and 1♥-2m showing various ♠ hands? Then using 1♥-1NT as an artificial GF is more playable.

FYI, its also cramped after 1♠-2♣ and here is the structure below:

1♠-2♣:
2♦ = 5+♠ 4+♣ or 5+♠ 5+♥ or 5(440)
2♥ = 6+♠
2♠ = 5+♠ 4♦
2NT = 5+♠ 5+♦
3♣+ = 5+♠ 4♥

After 1♠-2♣// 2♦-2♥:
2♠ = 5+♠ 4♣
2NT = 5+♠ 5+♣
3♣ = 5(440)
3♦+ = 5+♠ 5+♥

But I think here, using 1NT as the GFR is not as playable as it is over 1♥, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know if giving up the ability to have easier constructive auctions is worth the extra step(s) that we gain by using 1NT as the GFR.

Regarding making 1♦ as 3+ and unbalanced is an idea we've considered, but doing so would only affect two distributions: 1435/4135 and makes the gain minimal. With the former we open 1♥ and with the latter 2♣. 1♦ may be under-utilized, but we feel it leaves us better placed in competitive sequences. As for relative minor suit lengths: 1♦-1M// 1NT=4♦ 5+♣ (may be maximum 4-6 planning to continue with 3♣ and 1♦-1M// 2♣=5+♦ 4+♣

Regarding The Hog's comment about how he assumed that saying MOSCITO meant 4-card majors often canapé, this is all I've to say:

Opponents come to the table, announce that they're playing precision. First hand out auction goes (1♣)-P-(1♥) (alerted of course) to you. Do you assume that 1♥ shows 5+♥ 8+ pts, even though there are many variations on what this can mean based on partnership agreement. So you don't ask. It turns out 1♥ showed 5+♠ or 11-13 balanced, do you scream murder because you assumed that this showed ♥s because that was what it meant in the original precision? Or better yet, the first time you came up against a MOSCITO pair that had started opening in the 6-card minor instead of the 4-card major, and you overcalled their 4-card major and either got burned or misplayed the hand because they "couldn't" have a decent 4-card major because in the original system they would've opened the major. Did you go running to the police then?

The point I'm trying to make is that many partnerships adopt a system, and then adjust it to their personal style. The reason we called this "moscito" is because we started out with the basic system, and changed it to our liking, just like many pairs do playing precision, or even 2/1...we just didn't feel like changing the name. We did make one "small" change and started calling it LIAR MOSCITO (Legal In America Relays MOSCITO)...but don't know if this is enough of a change to appease you

[Cascade]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 12:52, said:

The point I'm trying to make is that many partnerships adopt a system, and then adjust it to their personal style. The reason we called this "moscito" is because we started out with the basic system, and changed it to our liking, just like many pairs do playing precision, or even 2/1...we just didn't feel like changing the name. We did make one "small" change and started calling it LIAR MOSCITO (Legal In America Relays MOSCITO)...but don't know if this is enough of a change to appease you

I imagine if I played two under transfers with mostly non-forcing change of suits something like:

1♣ = hearts
1♦ = spades
1♥ = clubs
1♠ = diamonds

and called my system "2/1" that you wouldn't accept your argument.

I like the "LIAR" bit but what you play bears very little resemblance to MOSCITO.

[Crunch3nt]

oops

[hrothgar]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 12:52, said:

Regarding The Hog's comment about how he assumed that saying MOSCITO meant 4-card majors often canapé, this is all I've to say:

Opponents come to the table, announce that they're playing precision. First hand out auction goes (1♣)-P-(1♥) (alerted of course) to you. Do you assume that 1♥ shows 5+♥ 8+ pts, even though there are many variations on what this can mean based on partnership agreement. So you don't ask. It turns out 1♥ showed 5+♠ or 11-13 balanced, do you scream murder because you assumed that this showed ♥s because that was what it meant in the original precision? Or better yet, the first time you came up against a MOSCITO pair that had started opening in the 6-card minor instead of the 4-card major, and you overcalled their 4-card major and either got burned or misplayed the hand because they "couldn't" have a decent 4-card major because in the original system they would've opened the major. Did you go running to the police then?

The point I'm trying to make is that many partnerships adopt a system, and then adjust it to their personal style. The reason we called this "moscito" is because we started out with the basic system, and changed it to our liking, just like many pairs do playing precision, or even 2/1...we just didn't feel like changing the name. We did make one "small" change and started calling it LIAR MOSCITO (Legal In America Relays MOSCITO)...but don't know if this is enough of a change to appease you

In what way shape or form does the expression "MOSCITO" facilitate communication?

The system that you are describing bears little/no relationship to MOSCITO.
You're only going to confuse people who actually know/play the system in question.

Moreover, you are going to run into issues with accusations regarding your ethics because you aren't accurately describing your methods.

Using the expression MOSCITO has a lot of costs.
I don't perceive any actual benefits.

So, why do it?

[olien]

Ok, what do you suggest we call it? "Modified Precision" seems like a misnomer because it doesn't use 5-card majors, and our 1♣ structure is not anything close a "normal" precision 1♣ opener, and we use relays over all of our openers, and don't use a precision 2♦ opener. Also, our 1♣ is weaker than a normal precision 1♣ opener, and our other openers DENY having a balanced hand. So, what would you suggest we call it?

[matmat]

I've resisted for a while, but finally, can't really help it. Every time I see this topic bumped I can't help but think of the classic tune "Ne me moleste mosquito."

[olien]

LOL Mateusz very nice.

[Crunch3nt]

Some thoughts:

1) I don't think you should call it Moscito either. I would just call it Strong Club.

2) I would have thought that systemically passing with 11-14 HCP and 4S and 6C was a HUM - wbf definition is "A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities"

3) Going way back to your very original post, I would have just given up your 2H opening. Weak two in hearts aren't much chop these days.

[hrothgar]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 13:36, said:

Ok, what do you suggest we call it? "Modified Precision" seems like a misnomer because it doesn't use 5-card majors, and our 1♣ structure is not anything close a "normal" precision 1♣ opener, and we use relays over all of our openers, and don't use a precision 2♦ opener. Also, our 1♣ is weaker than a normal precision 1♣ opener, and our other openers DENY having a balanced hand. So, what would you suggest we call it?

Homebrew strong club system...

[mgoetze]

olien, on 2010-December-23, 13:36, said:

Ok, what do you suggest we call it? "Modified Precision" seems like a misnomer because it doesn't use 5-card majors, and our 1♣ structure is not anything close a "normal" precision 1♣ opener, and we use relays over all of our openers, and don't use a precision 2♦ opener. Also, our 1♣ is weaker than a normal precision 1♣ opener, and our other openers DENY having a balanced hand. So, what would you suggest we call it?

Oh come on Owen, those few hands where you open 1♥ with 4... your system is a lot closer to relay precision than MOSCITO.

[the hog]

Strong Club is fine and an accurate name.

Quote Olien:
"Opponents come to the table, announce that they're playing precision. First hand out auction goes (1♣)-P-(1♥) (alerted of course) to you. Do you assume that 1♥ shows 5+♥ 8+ pts, even though there are many variations on what this can mean based on partnership agreement"
No, this is a disingenuous example. However if it turned out that they opened 4 card Ms or transfer openings etc and that caused me to misplay the hand then, "yes", I certainly would, and actually have done so. I have already given you the Polish Club example. Further Cascade has given you a 2/1 example with transfer openings. Would you accept this as 2/1?

[olien]

No, because 2/1 is a basic system of 5-card major openings, usually a 15-17 NT, and a forcing 2♣ opening.

Just like moscito is a basic system of 12-14 NT's and a 15+ 1♣ opening. The only difference between the original MOSCITO and our system is what suits we choose to open. Not what the suits change. I'll use your own words in saying that Cascade's example is disingenuous because the example he gave doesn't resemble 2/1 GF.

I don't know where you're from, but your crying to the director would never go here. If you called the director the directors would ask you why you didn't bother to look at the opponent's convention card. It is there for a reason, and not as table decoration.