[erki_]

My partner and I are playing MOSCITO at the moment (the same version Paul Marston and Matthew Thomson played at last BB) and since about 95% of players here in Estonia play a precision-like strong club system with 15-17 1NT, we always get into trouble when somebody gets bad result or doesn't understand our explanations.

When playing in last matchpoint tournament against respected old couple (the man is one of the two TDs running the biggest international bridge event in Estonia this year), they defended pretty poorly against us. We opened 1♥ showing 4+♠ 9-14HCP, they both bid clubs and we ended up in 4♠ and somewhy the woman decided to lead a diamond, so I got 13 tricks instead of 10) and after the round, the man came to us and asked, if we always open with 9HCP which we gave negative answer (surely we dont open with let's say KJxx Kxx Qxx xxx). Then he stated, that we cannot play that system any more as it is HUM, referring to WBF systems policy, which states that "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." If I tried to say that it is not HUM for sure, he got very angry that such young boys even dare to say something to defend themselves.

1) Was his statement correct?
2) I cannot understand the meaning of this rule. If our opening bids start at 9HCP (thus pass range is 0-8), does it mean that I must open with every hand that contains 9HCP? If 1NT opening shows 11-14HCP, does it mean that pass range is actually 0-10HCP and I cannot open with 0-9HCP? What is that "pass" in "weaker than pass"?

[hrothgar]

The purpose of the WBF regulation that you quote is to limit players from using so-called "Strong Pass" systems where pass is used as a strong, artificial and forcing opening. Moreover, the Pass is systemically stronger that the "fert".

There are any number of bidding systems that require different strength for different types of opening bids. For example, Kaplan-Scheinwold features light openings in a major but very sound minor suit openings.

Your best course of action is to be very polite with individual in question and point out that he is a participant and not running the event. Ask that a Director getting summoned for a formal ruling. If ANY Director rules that the methods in question are a HUM make sure that they put their ruling down in writing. You'll want written documentation when you appeal this to the National authority. If you can, try to have said individual's license to Direct revoked.

[DrTodd13]

According to his statement, everybody is playing a HUM because almost everybody will pass a balanced 11 count but will open a 5/5 hand with 10 points. This guy has got concrete for brains. It is called judgement. Nowhere does it say that you have to user A=4,K=3, etc. You can evaluate your hand using
whatever method you like and some 9pt hands to him aren't 9pt hands to you.

[Sigi_BC84]

This is actually very easy.

WBF policy on HUM systems:

Quote

2.1 General

Average Hand: a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values.

[...]

2.2 HUM Systems

For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement:
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
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass.
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another.

As you can see, a 9-14 HCP opening does not turn a system into a HUM system. Furthermore, the Moscito "pass" call is not systemically stronger than a one level opening. Of course there are passes which are stronger than, for example, certain distributional openings, but that goes for almost any system (e.g. SAYC doesn't open 11 HCP balanced but for sure you may open 10 HCP distributional if the hand is good).

Therefore, Moscito is not a HUM.

Apart from that I second what Richard posted above (if the TD rules otherwise, get a written record and appeal).

--Sigi

[csdenmark]

..

[Sigi_BC84]

Claus,

do you sometimes actually read the postings you are replying to?

--Sigi

[erki_]

No it wasn't ACBL tournament, in fact our country's systems policy even allows brown sticker conventions in most national tournaments.
Basics of this policy is written here: http://my.tele2.ee/bridz/SYS.htm

[Free]

As been stated above, it's not a HUM. I play MOSCITO as well, and it's a RED system (artificial, not standard).

Opening on some 9 point hands doesn't mean you're playing HUM because you pass some 10 counts as well (balanced ones). You just have certain minimum strength requirements which don't use 'HCP' alone. You can use distribution, controls, 'rule of ...', or whatever method you want. We use a combination of HCP and SlamPoints (aka AKQ-points). Our pass is never as strong as an opening: 6+SP and 9-14HCP. If you have less in one of the ranges, pass is our bid, and it's not 'stronger' than a normal opening.

HUM's are basicly systems which USE the pass to show strong hand types. If you'd agree with that so-called 'TD' of yours, then everyone is playing a HUM, unless they ALWAYS pass with less than a certain HCP count and ALWAYS open with a certain amount. Everyone knows that QJx-QJx-QJx-QJxx is a ridiculous 12HCP hand where AKQJT98-QT98-T-T is a monster 12HCP hand. Nobody will pass the second hand, many will pass the first one.

[csdenmark]

erki_, on Mar 27 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

No it wasn't ACBL tournament, in fact our country's systems policy even allows brown sticker conventions in most national tournaments.
Basics of this policy is written here: http://my.tele2.ee/bridz/SYS.htm

Sorry I didn't notice this was in off-line section. Then my comment is obsolete and I delete it now.

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Mar 27 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

The purpose of the WBF regulation that you quote is to limit players from using so-called "Strong Pass" systems where pass is used as a strong, artificial and forcing opening. Moreover, the Pass is systemically stronger that the "fert".

There are any number of bidding systems that require different strength for different types of opening bids. For example, Kaplan-Scheiwold features light openings in a major but very sound minor suit openings.

Your best course of action is to be very polite with individual in question and point out that he is a participant and not running the event. Ask that a Director getting summoned for a formal ruling. If ANY Director rules that the methods in question are a HUM make sure that they put their ruling down in writing. You'll want written documentation when you appeal this to the National authority. If you can, try to have said individual's license to Direct revoked.

While I agree with the general tenor of hrothgar's answer, I disagree with two points.

i) The purpose of the regulation doesn't just stop forcing pass systems, but any system where an initial 'pass' _systemically_ shows more than one or more opening bids (the full reg has been quoted elsewhere).

ii) "try to have said individual's license to Direct revoked". That seems way too harsh. The majority of TDs make mistakes every now and again: that's why we have an appeals process. But many TDs learn from their mistakes. What sort of system is it if you lose your license for making a mistake?

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 27 2006, 05:49 PM, said:

ii) "try to have said individual's license to Direct revoked". That seems way too harsh. The majority of TDs make mistakes every now and again: that's why we have an appeals process. But many TDs learn from their mistakes. What sort of system is it if you lose your license for making a mistake?

Hi Frances

I think that its useful to differentiate between an advocacy position and the outcome from the judicial process.

I agree with that yanking someone's license to direct for an isolated minor transgression would probably be going overboard. With this said and done, I see nothing wrong with an aggrieved party taking a strong advocacy position in an attempt to forcibly “educate” someone.

[keylime]

I'd consider learning MOSCITO if the ACBL allowed it here - the concepts are starting to grow on me.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Mar 27 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

I'd consider learning MOSCITO if the ACBL allowed it here - the concepts are starting to grow on me.

Luckily you don't have to worry your silly little head about such things.

The ACBL Conventions Committee has already decided that transfer openings are FAR too complicated for North American's to defend against. Imagine the havok that 1♦ = (4+ Hearts, might have a longer minor) causes to constructive bidding.

Meckstroth has openly stated that he'll never permit the methods to be played in North America.

[inquiry]

Before you spend a lot of time learning this bidding system, realize a few things.

1) The acbl is unlikely to accept it anytime soon.
2) Like any shape showing relay system there is a flaw here (relatively speaking). If you know declarer's shape, you don't have to use "real" count signals at all. In fact you can play your spot cards in any order to confound declarer...since both you and your partner know his shape. This alone is a nice advantage on many hands. In addition, double dummy defense becomes easier. Against that, of course, the relay partnership find some magic fits not easily found other ways.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Mar 27 2006, 10:17 PM, said:

Before you spend a lot of time learning this bidding system, realize a few things.

1) The acbl is unlikely to accept it anytime soon.
2) Like any shape showing relay system there is a flaw here (relatively speaking). If you know declarer's shape, you don't have to use "real" count signals at all. In fact you can play your spot cards in any order to confound declarer...since both you and your partner know his shape. This alone is a nice advantage on many hands. In addition, double dummy defense becomes easier. Against that, of course, the relay partnership find some magic fits not easily found other ways.

Ben is certainly correct when he notes that there are costs as well as benefits to detailed/descriptive auctions. The more information that the defense has about the closed hand, the more accurate the defense.

With this said and done:

1. While relay systems carry this to an extreme, the same point holds true for virtually "scientific" system.

2. The converse holds true as well. If the relay asker ends up declaring the hand the opponents have much less information available to work with. Moreover, the folks who design relay systems are well aware of this issue. Many systems (including MOSCITO) are designed to maximize the chances that the closed hand asks rather than tells.

3. I play systems like MOSCITO because I like quick, non-informative auctions that blast to an acceptable contract. The relays are an enabling tool, not an end in-and-of themself.

[joshs]

inquiry, on Mar 27 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

Before you spend a lot of time learning this bidding system, realize a few things.

1) The acbl is unlikely to accept it anytime soon.
2) Like any shape showing relay system there is a flaw here (relatively speaking). If you know declarer's shape, you don't have to use "real" count signals at all. In fact you can play your spot cards in any order to confound declarer...since both you and your partner know his shape. This alone is a nice advantage on many hands. In addition, double dummy defense becomes easier. Against that, of course, the relay partnership find some magic fits not easily found other ways.

This is the main feature of relay systems. One hand is described very well to the opponents, and one is not. A well designed relay system has the undescribed hand as declarer as much as possible. In TOSR and moscito, I would estimate that the undescribed hand is declarer about 75% of the time. Its probably a half trick/bd advantage when that happens. When the converse happens (the known hand is declarer) its probably only about 0.25-.35 tricks/bd disadvantage since partial shape is usually known from a standard auction.

[jwmonty]

"Meckstroth has openly stated that he'll never permit the methods to be played in North America."

When and where did he state this?

[Sigi_BC84]

hrothgar, on Mar 27 2006, 08:37 PM, said:

issue. Many systems (including MOSCITO) are designed to maximize the chances that the closed hand asks rather than tells.

When I'm looking at Marston's latest variant (let's call it the "official" Moscito), I'm getting the impression that apart from the limited transfer opening he has largely ignored this problem. Many of relay responder's bids are natural.

I am somewhat confused by PM's decision to go down this road (obviously he did it for memory reasons).

Some day I will run a few simulations to see how many uncontested contracts in average end up "wrong" sided.

--Sigi

[hrothgar]

jwmonty, on Mar 31 2006, 07:18 AM, said:

"Meckstroth has openly stated that he'll never permit the methods to be played in North America."

When and where did he state this?

Traditionally, the ACBL used convention charters to list the set of methods that could be used a different levels play. A few years back the ACBL supplemented these regulations by creating the "Defensive Database". The ACBL drafted a new set of laws that stated that players were banned from playing Midchart methods unless a suggested defense was approved by the Conventions Committee and posted in the Defensive Database.

This regulation was originally described as a mechanism to liberalize the set of conventions that payers were able to use. As defenses were approved, more and more sets of methods would be added to the Midchart. In actuality, Jeff Meckstroth and Chip Martel used this regulation to gut the Midchart. These two worthy individuals refuse to approve any kind of defense to methods that they don't want to face at the table. The ACBL Midchart is actually fairly reasonable in what is allows. For example, players are allowed to play any opening bid that shows at least 4 cards in a known suit. However, in all the years that the Defensive database has been up and running, the committee has been able to approve defenses to a grand total of 15 different openings... Lord knows when the last time anything was actually added.

My original run in with the Approval committee members happened back when Fred Gitelman was still on the committee. I wanted to an early version of the Frelling 2D opening where 2D shows a weak hand with 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major. It was at this point in time that I discovered that the real purpose of the Convention Approval Committee was to ban methods. I spent a LONG time trying to get defenses approved only two be rejected time and time again with no constructive criticism regarding what type of methods might be permitted. After a while, I decided to given up on the Frelling 2D and turn my attention to trying to get MOSCITO style transfer openings allowed. Same story: It was absolutely impossible to get the Conventions committee to approve a defense to a 1D opening that promises 4+ Hearts (might have a longer minor)...

I was starting to get really pissed off and asked a friend of mine named Tim Goodwin for some help. (Tim was a occasional partner of mine and also was the President of ACBL District 25). Tim made the reasonable suggest that we start small and try to get defenses approved to a “simpler” opening and then (progressively) add complexity. This is an obvious “thin end of the wedge” type strategy. Accordingly, we stated that we wanted to playing a 1H opening that shows the exact same hand as a normal SAYC style 1S opening. We submitted the opening and the defense to the Conventions committee. By this time, Fred had left the committee and been replace by Steve Weinstein. Steve sent Tim and I an email that stated that he saw nothing wrong with the submission and that he expected a quick approval. At this point in Time Meckstroth sent out an email of his own stating (correctly) that this was an attempt to open the door for MOSCITO and that he would never permit this “diabolical” system to be played in North America. (I should have I still have the original email on a hard drive somewhere....) For me, this was the straw that broke the camels back. I haven't played in a face-to-face game in North America since the Las Vegas Nationals in 2001.

With this said and done, I did have another go around with the ACBL conventions committee. In 2003 Paul Marston wanted to play MOSCITO in the Reisinger. He ran in exactly the same set of issues. His comments are available at http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...to2005intro.pdf

[Gerben42]

I can't understand such a comment from the player who with his regular partner plays the most complex system on the planet.