hrothgar, on Oct 23 2007, 10:11 PM, said:
So... I'm vaguely considering creating a GCC legal MOSCITO variant. The goal is to create something that is
1. Fun
2. Legal
3. Minimal memory load
4. Reasonably effective (give the constraints of the GCC)
Here's the current thinking
(All three suited hands are opened either 1♦ or 1♥)
(All balanced hands are opened 1NT)
2N = 5+ Clubs and 5+ Diamonds (~ 7 - 11 HCP)
2♠ = 6+ Spades, single suited (~ 8- 11 HCP)
2♥ = Two suited with both majors (~ 11 - 14 HCP)
2♦ = 6+ Diamonds, (~8-11 HCP)
2♣ = 6+ Clubs (~ 9 - 14 HCP)
1N = 11+ - 14 balanced
1♠ = 4+ Spades, unbalanced, might have a longer minor (~9-14)
1♥ = 4+ Hearts, unbalanced, might have a longer minor (~9-14)
1♦ = 4+ Diamonds, unbalanced (~9-14 HCP)
1♣ = Strong art forcing
Over 1♠
4H/4D/4C = Splinters
3N = To play
3♠ = Value raise
3H/3D/3C = Fit jump (6+ in bid suit, 3 card trump support)
2N = Limit+ with 4 pieces
2S = value raise
2D = natural and non forcing
2C = natural and non-forcing
1N = forcing
I have read this entire discussion (to date) and I think it is interesting.
First, I want to point out that objects 3 and 4 are contradictory. Minimum memory and reasonably effective just don't belong together. A "system" is much more than just an opening bid and a response and a few gadgets. Many who say they play 2/1 or SAYC think they are playing a system but they aren't. What they are playing is very incomplete. Hrothgar only has to look at his own Moscito book to recognize what a "system" is. I recommend that everyone read John Montgomery's book, "Revision" which is available on Daniel's systems page,
http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/ It gives a great insight to some modern conventions, how they inter-mesh with each other, and the direction that modern expert bridge is heading.
Second. It is interesting that 2/1 responses whether game forcing or non-forcing don't come up near as often as you might think. In John Montgomery's book, he states that in almost 800 deals in world championship play there were only 33 deals that qualified for either a forcing or non-forcing 2/1 response. He said that in 30 of these deals either method would have ended with the same result, 1 GF system would do better and 2 NF system would do better than the other. Evidently it makes little difference which method you use as long as you know your methods.
Third. I think it would be great if you could incorporate Frelling 2-bids as limited 2-level opening bids (with the strength required for a limited Moscito opening bid). I'd be willing to give up weak two bids. If 2-level transfer openings are allowed they could be like Boomerang 2-bids except the same suits would be shown whether weak or strong.
Fourth, I am a certified director but I took the test in 1978. I asked ACBL if I was still a certified director. They said yes. It hardly seems right that someone that hasn't directed a game in over 25 years should still be certified. I need to go back and relearn the laws. I will never be an expert even though I have a good memory. Being able to remember a complex system helps but is not a substitute for good judgment (and a little luck) at the bridge table.
Help
...
...
