[effervesce]

For those moscito fanatics out there I've written up the moscito 2005 bidding system by Paul Marston (constructed from his convention card from a Bermuda Bowl a while ago-got sick of waiting for him to release the system! argh) The 1C structure is awesome-we only really use the 1C structure and dont use the submarine 1D/1H/1S transfer openings though.

However, it is slightly out-of-date with respect to the responses to the submarine 1D/1H/1S openings that Marston now plays-I believe he has transfer responses where the step response is now either a game forcing relay or the equivalent of a 1NT balanced hand response.

For those not in the know, in moscito 2005 the 1C is a 15+ strong hand with the following responses:

1D = 6+QP, game forcing any (except for game forcing 5440 hands)
1H = 3-5QP, semipositive, balanced may have 5 card major OR unbalanced no 5 card major
1S = negative (0-2QP) any
1NT = semipositive 5+ hearts 4+ another
2C = semipositive 5+ spades 4+ minor
2D = semipositive 5+ hearts 4+ spades
2H = semipositive heart singlesuiter
2S = semipositive spade singlesuiter
2NT+ = game forcing 5440 hands

This structure works well in that it saves space for the good hands, and helps prevent interference after a negative response to the 1C. Also, there's good notes dealing with interference (as essential to any strong 1C system).

If you're interested, feel free to download it from
http://s12.quickshar...oscito.doc.html

Enjoy! There's probably more than a few mistakes/omissions but if you could point them out to me that'd be great. I actually had a more correct version a long time ago and it's taken me a while to finally go back and rewrite the whole damn 16 pages of it after my comp hd died at the beginning of last year =(

[hrothgar]

This looks like a cool system... Can you tell us any more about it?

More seriously, welcome to the forums. Its great to have some MOSCITO players arround...

[effervesce]

Thanks for the welcome. As for more info: 

-the relays are antinumeric (ie clubs/diamonds/hearts/spades in order of priority). 
-the system after a 1C-1D game force, or a 1C-semipositive-(step bid game force) are designed so that single-suited hands end up using the single-suiter table, the two-suiter hands using the two-suiter table etc

[b]Single-suiter table (2S is step beginning the single-suited table below-the previous bidding would have indicated which suit)[/b]
2NT = 6332 or 7222
	3C = relay
  3D = 6223 (show in numerical/alphabetical order)
  3H = 6232
  3S = 6322
  3NT = 7222
3C = HS
3D = MS
3H = 6331
3S = 7(32)1
3NT = 7330


[b]Two-suiter table (where the previous bidding would have revealed which two suits)[/b]

2S = first in alphabet longer (if possible)
	2NT = relay
  responses as for 3C-> below
2NT = 5+/5+ (if possible)
	3C = relay
  3D = HS
  	3H = relay-resolve as below
  3H = 5611 or 6511
  	3S = relay; now 3NT = 5611, 4C = 6511)
  3S = LS 5521
  3NT = LS 5530
  4C = LS 5620 (numerical/alphabetical order)
  4D = LS 6520
3C = HS (higher in alphabet longer for 3C+)
3D = 5422
3H = LS 5431
3S = LS 6421
3NT = LS 6430
4C = LS 7420
4D = 7411

[b]The three-suited hands are handled in the balanced/4441 or 2NT+ GFresponses to 1C or semipostives-below is the balanced/4441 table[/b]

1NT = balanced or 4441 
	2C = relay
  2D = no major
  	2H = relay
    2S = clubs only
    2NT = diamonds and clubs
    3C/3D/3H = 2353/3253/3352 respectively
    3S = 3343, 4-5 QP
    3NT = 3343, 3QP
  2H = 4 or 5 hearts, not 4 spades
  	2S = relay
    2NT = 5 hearts (5332 shape)
    3C = 4 clubs, 4 hearts
    3D = 2443
    3H = 3442
    3S/3NT = 3433 (4-5 and 3QP respectively)
  2S = 4 spades, not 4 hearts
  	3C = relay
    3D = spades and clubs
    3H = 4243
    3S = 4342
    3NT = 4333
  2NT = 5 spades
  3C = 4 spades, 4 hearts
  3D/3H/3S/3NT = 4441s, HS to LS

Having such single-suiter/two-suiter tables that recur throughout the system make it not too hard to learn (still hard but easier than other relay systems).

Does anyone know how to make it tab properly? since its not formatting properly sorry. It only vaguely tabs when i put it as 'code' at least-but its still not great.

[the hog]

Hi Effervesce,

Richard, (Hrothgar), was being a little facetious. A good many of Paul's ideas were helped along by Richard. R and I have probably played Moscito longer than anyone with the obvious exception of Paul.

Incidentally the system loses a HUGE amount unless you play the transfer openings!

Welcome to the forum, btw

[effervesce]

Hi The Hog,

lol whoopsies. I didnt know Richard helped out alot with making the system :-)

Anyway, you ask, what does not using the transfer 1D/1H openings lose? The ability to relay shape/etc to reach slam? The ability to reach 4-3 major fits quickly, making it difficult for the opponents to balance?

Losing the ability to relay may be true, but in general I've found that
a) its not required that often
b ) relaying with a strong hand opposite a weaker hand is usually more useful in determining slam potential. With two moderate hands it takes more denial cue-bidding and often its harder to determine who has what from the QP and denial cuebids
c) the transfer opening allows the opponents an extra bid (of course this may be counterbalanced by the 1S bid)
d) the 5 of a minor/4major opening hands.

My main problem with the system is I'm not sure how to handle these-maybe Paul (or you) have found suitable ways to deal with these 4 of a major/5 minor hands which are opened with 1D/1H transfers. If it goes

1D(4+hearts)-1NT-2C (showing 5/4 hearts clubs either way), you have a problem: when do you correct back to 2H or pass 2C? Obviously you cant bid 2H if you have only 2 hearts (you could be in a 4-2 fit!), and if you have two hearts and two clubs you just got screwed. Do you know Paul's new structure over the 1D/1H openings? Coz I'd love to learn it :-)

[Free]

He now uses the relay as either GF (or perhaps invitational+, I'm not sure) relay OR a natural 1NT response. Now opener will clarify his holding by bidding natural, except 1NT which shows an unbalanced hand with a 4 card in the Major. Note that the 1♦ and 1♥ openings are unbalanced, so this bid is also free. He also uses the bids from 1NT and up as transfers, which adds a lot of natural ways to bid to game. Without the transfer, you don't get this options which makes the system less efficient.

[helene_t]

Typo: There's some inconsistency in the 1NT/2♣/2♦ responses to 1♣. I think 2♦ should be 5S/4H.

[hrothgar]

effervesce, on Mar 29 2007, 08:11 AM, said:

Anyway, you ask, what does not using the transfer 1D/1H openings lose? The ability to relay shape/etc to reach slam? The ability to reach 4-3 major fits quickly, making it difficult for the opponents to balance?

The transfer opening structure was adopted for three main resons

1. Transfer openings complement MOSCITO's Majors First opening style by preserving bidding space for frequent hand types. Playing MOSCITO opener will initially show Hearts with many more hand types than he shows Diamonds. Transfer openings align the level of the opening with its frequency, significantly improving the efficiency of the relay structures.

2. The transfer opening structure is designed to “right side” contracts. We prefer that the relay asker declare contracts rather than the relay responder. Defender's typically have very little information about the relay asker's hand forcing them to defend blind. Futhermore, the relay asker is (typically) stronger than the relay responder which increases the chance that the opening lead will be into a tenace.

3. The transfer opening structure allows natural bidding after a 1M opening without displacing the relay structure. After a 1♦ opening showing 4+ Hearts, there is still the option to bid 1♠ as a natural bid showing 4+ Spades. After a 1♥ opening showing 4+ Spades, you can use 1NT as a natural and non-forcing response. (Admitted, current MOSCITO variants use 1NT as a transfer to clubs, but the basic priciple stands)

[hrothgar]

effervesce, on Mar 29 2007, 08:11 AM, said:

1D(4+hearts)-1NT-2C (showing 5/4 hearts clubs either way), you have a problem: when do you correct back to 2H or pass 2C? Obviously you cant bid 2H if you have only 2 hearts (you could be in a 4-2 fit!), and if you have two hearts and two clubs you just got screwed. Do you know Paul's new structure over the 1D/1H openings? Coz I'd love to learn it :-)

I wasn't involved with the new response structure over 1♦/1♥ openings. (I'm not sure if I like the transfer response structures and given that i don't have any serious MOSCITO partnership going right now, it seems more toruble than its worth to memorize). At some point in time, i'll probably try to develop some real notes on it though.

Here is the short answer to your question about the 5-4 patterns.

Note the following:

1. A natural non-forcing response to 1M openings promises a balanced hand. All unbalanced hands will prefer a 2/1

2. A natural non-forcing response to a 1M opening denies 3 card trump support. All hands with 3 card trump support make an immediate raise to 2M

If you have an auction like 1♥ - 1N - 2♣, responder promises precisely 2 card support for Spades and 3+ card support for all other suits. Responder also has the option to pass 2♣ and play in a known seven fit or raise 2♣. (An immediate 3♣ bid is a preemptive raise showing 4+ card support. 2NT is a strong Club raise)

Alternatively, responder can chose to rebid 2♦ or 2♥ (promising a 5332 hand with length in the bid suit).

Finally, responder has the option to rebid 2♠ and suggest a 5-2 Spade fit. If the partnership is sitting in a 4-2 Spade fit, they are gaurunteed a 5-3 club fit.

[effervesce]

Quote

Here is the short answer to your question about the 5-4 patterns.

Note the following:

1. A natural non-forcing response to 1M openings promises a balanced hand. All unbalanced hands will prefer a 2/1

2. A natural non-forcing response to a 1M opening denies 3 card trump support. All hands with 3 card trump support make an immediate raise to 2M

If you have an auction like 1♥ - 1N - 2♣, responder promises precisely 2 card support for Spades and 3+ card support for all other suits. Responder also has the option to pass 2♣ and play in a known seven fit or raise 2♣. (An immediate 3♣ bid is a preemptive raise showing 4+ card support. 2NT is a strong Club raise)

Alternatively, responder can chose to rebid 2♦ or 2♥ (promising a 5332 hand with length in the bid suit).

Finally, responder has the option to rebid 2♠ and suggest a 5-2 Spade fit. If the partnership is sitting in a 4-2 Spade fit, they are gaurunteed a 5-3 club fit.

Okay, so with all unbalanced hands you bid a new suit... so does that mean I must respond to an opening of 1D or 1H with 2C with 8 points, unbalanced hand with clubs? Because I'd previously thought that for a 2/1 bid you'd still need at least 10 points... but I guess that makes sense as game invitational hands would go through the relay...

Previously I dealt with situations where a 1H (4+ spades) i'd respond 1NT with an 8 count, 2-1 spades, 2-3clubs, 5/4 hearts and diamonds. So instead with such hands you're suggesting i should bid the 5 card suit, and this 2/1 bid would be NF? That appears to open a whole new can of worms-now say opener has a 5314 shape and responder has a 1453/2452 shape- the bidding would go 1H-2D I presume? Then you have a similar sticky situation...

[hrothgar]

Everything that i'm saying right now has to do with the traditional 2/1 response style (before the xfer responses were introduced)

Traditionally a 2/1 response showed ~ 7 - 11 HCP

Holding a 5-4-2-2 pattern, you would (typically) make a 2/1 in the 5 card suit.

At times, you run into a misfit. Its annoying.

[effervesce]

Quote

At times, you run into a misfit. Its annoying.

Yes it is-especially if you play in a 5-1/ 4-2 misfit while there is an 7 or 8 card fit available elsewhere. That's why I'll still play a precisionesque system for the time being (1C = 15+ moscito, 1D = 2+D 10-14, 1H/1S = 4+ suit 10-14, 1NT 9-11 NV 1st/2nd and 12-14 vul or 3rd/4th, 2C 10-14 prec, 2D multi, 2H/2S major/minor, 2NT=minors). These misfits happened far too often for my liking.

However, it might have been more frequent than it should have due to (what we played) the 1NT response on these unbalanced hands with 7-10-I wonder what a bridge simulator would say about comparing the resultant contracts from bidding 1NT with those 5422/5431 hands instead of making a 2/1 bid. What do you (and others) think?