[hrothgar]

As some of you know, I've been playing arround with a GCC legal MOSCITO variant.

The core of the methods will be

1. A strong club opening showing ~15+ HCP
2. A 11+ - 14 HCP 1NT opening
3. A 1M opening that promises 4+ Cards, ~ 9 - 114 HCP

I had (originally) been experimenting with a 1D opening that shows either

A single suited hand with Diamonds or
A two suited hand with both minors

I've been a bit frustrated because this opening isn't coming up all that often. It seems that I am wasting some valuable real estate on a rare bid.

I've been debating the following:

Bundle single suited hands with Clubs into the 1♦ opening. 1♦ now promises either

A single suited hand with Diamonds or
A single suited hand with Clubs or
A two suited hand with both minors

In turn, this would free up a 2♣ opening for some other purpose. (I'm leaning towards two suited hand with at least 5-4 in the majors and then coupling this with a 2D opening that showed a three suited pattern with both majors)

In essence, this is moving backwards towards some earlier versions of MOSCITO that used natural 1M openings, an artifical 1NT opening showing 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades, and an artificial 1D opening that denied a 4 card major.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.

[jtfanclub]

I don't see how a 2♦ opening bid showing either minor could possibly be legal in Midchart, let alone GCC.

[MickyB]

It's supposed to say that the *1*♦ opening would include those hands.

[jtfanclub]

MickyB, on Dec 7 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

It's supposed to say that the *1*♦ opening would include those hands.

Oh, OK. Lots of people use that...I just don't happen to be one of them.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Dec 7 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

I don't see how a 2♦ opening bid showing either minor could possibly be legal in Midchart, let alone GCC.

Sorry - typo.
Is fixed now...

I meant to say that I'd migrate the 2♣ openers into the 1♦ opening

[kenrexford]

The minor-suit structure in strong club systems always has seemed disturbed. I have no idea whether this will fit into your approach, but the solution I liked for years:

2♦ handles minor two-suiters. (2♥ then works best as some sort of asking bid)

2♣ handles all four-by-ones, with 2♦ as an asking bid (2♥ min with hearts, 2♠ min without hearts, one-under stiff with max; 3♦ after 2♥ asks for the stiff)

1♦ shows either minor one-suited (use judgment with 4♦/5♣), and

1. if canape, 1♦ could be a diamond-major canape if 2M shows a club-major canape, longer major

2. if not canape, the "one-suited minor" hands could feature a four-card major

3. if wild canape (2M is a weak two or something), then 1♦ could by a minor-major canape, unknown shorter minor, possibly with some untangling conventions

[MickyB]

Yes, your original 1♦ opening was definitely underloaded...after all, those are the same hands that you have in a 1♠ opening when using transfer openings. Quite how well the 1♦ opening would fare, I don't know, and presumably it would still be less frequent than your 1M openings, but if the major two-suiters are problematic in a 1M opening, then this would seem a reasonable solution.

BTW, I encountered similar issues while creating a strong club, four-card major system. As you may remember, I eventually gave up on using the 1♦ opening for these hands, and had it show precisely four spades, which was much more frequent and solved the issue of major two-suiters. Unbalanced hands without a four-card major are better handled by descriptive, slightly preemptive 2m openings, in an effort to get to the right spot quickly and put the opposition to the last guess.

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on Dec 7 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

BTW, I encountered similar issues while creating a strong club, four-card major system. As you may remember, I eventually gave up on using the 1♦ opening for these hands, and had it show precisely four spades, which was much more frequent and solved the issue of major two-suiters. Unbalanced hands without a four-card major are better handled by descriptive, slightly preemptive 2m openings, in an effort to get to the right spot quickly and put the opposition to the last guess.

My interest in the 2♣ opening isn't based on a desire to remove hand types for 1M, but rather, preemptive effect. Responder should be well positioned to jam the auction.

However, I also like the idea of using 1♦ to show precisely 4 Spades. However, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable using 2m to show either a single suited hand or a two suiter with both minors.

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

However, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable using 2m to show either a single suited hand or a two suiter with both minors.

Look at it this way - it's a fair bit better than a Precision 2♣ that could be opened on 5♣4M, and probably as descriptive as a 6+card 2♣ opening that could have a side four-card major.

[awm]

I think you have to ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish. What are the advantages of Moscito as opposed to other systems, and to what degree can you maintain these advantages under a GCC regulatory structure?

In order to simplify things a bit, let's compare Moscito against a relatively "standard" precision opening structure of:

1♣ = 15+ ART
1♦ = 4+♦, unbalanced, no 5M
1M = 5+M
1N = 11+ to 14
2♣ = 5♣/4M or 6+♣
2♦ = 4414 or nearly so
higher = preempts

This equalizes the advantage from light, limited opening bids as well as any advantage/disadvantage inherent in the strong club and weak notrump approach. Compared to this method it seems like Moscito:

(1) Wins in game/slam auctions because of relays and because of the ability to put the describing hand down as dummy frequently (transfer openings). In principle though, you can play relay over essentially any opening structure. And the transfer openings aren't going to be GCC. So this advantage of Moscito is going to be lost in the GCC transition.

(2) Wins when opener has 4M/5♣ hand type. "Standard" precision can lose a major suit fit entirely here after opening 2♣, whereas Moscito lets you show both suits and still get out in 2♣ if that's your best fit.

(3) Wins because you don't need the 2♦ "three-suited" opening any more. It's not that you necessarily do better on those hands which open 2♦ (you probably do slightly worse) -- it's that you have this extra bid to use for a preempt.

(4) Loses a little bit when opener has a 5M, because the "standard precision" player is more likely to be able to compete the hand to the right level. If you have 4M support and some balanced hand type, playing Moscito you must either bid 2M (which often lets the opponents find their fit more easily) or bid 3M (which could be only an 8 card fit when you might've bought the hand for 2M). Admittedly the opponents are guessing a little bit too, but I think knowing more about partner's hand normally helps you more than it helps the opponents.

(5) Probably more or less break even when opener has 4M+4♦ or 4M+5♦, but it's not clear. Finding the major right away can certainly be a help, but you could also miss a much better diamond fit after 1M-2M which could guide you to winning the partial or making better game decisions. Bidding the major first is a big advantage over bidding a nebulous minor (i.e. 1♦ 2+) or preempting above the major suit (i.e. precision 2♣) but it's not clear that opening a 1♥ bid that shows 4+♥ possibly longer suit is necessarily better than opening 1♦ to show 4+♦ no longer suit.

(6) Loses when opener has a hand with primary diamonds and responder has a 5M without game invitational values, since you can't easily find the major fit over 1♠ (showing diamonds) whereas it would be much easier over a natural 1♦ opening.

Given the constraints of GCC, it seems like you can maintain the big wins (2) and (3) while reducing some of the losses from (4) and (6) using a structure like:

1♣ = 15+ ART
1♦ = 4+♦, possible 4M, possible longer clubs
1M = 4+M, if only 4M then will have 5+♣ or be 4414
1NT = 11+ to 14
2♣ = 6+♣ (not clear if this should be able to include 4M or not)

One nice thing about this structure is that you can have sequences like 1M-1NT, and be assured that if partner rebids above 2♣ he has five cards in the original major, allowing you to correct to 5-2 major fits or make 3-card limit raises if necessary. Over 1M-1N-2♣ you can use a bart variant 2♦ to check back on whether opener has the canape hand.

[gerry]

When I dont want to use 1♦ to split up my NT range (say 10-12 and 13-14) I include minor three suiters in 1♦ instead, you get some good auctions like 1♦-1♠-2♥ splinter! and you can use the simple raise as 3 cards.

[Free]

In short: you're now playing a 0+♦ opening with 4 card Majors MAFIA style. If you ask me, you might as well play 5 card Majors now.

With one partner I play following structure:
1♦ = 10-15, 0+♦
1M = 10-15, 5+M
1NT = 14-16

The 1♦ opening encompasses following hands:
- 11+-13 bal
- 10-15, ♦ (6+ / 5 and 4M)
- 10-15, ♣ (6+ / 5 and 4M)
- 10-15, both minors
- 10-15, any 3-suiter

If you make good agreements over intervention, the 1♦ opening is just ok... The 1M openings on the other hand are great.

Moscito is great the way it is, but trying to change it to something legal without the transfer openings seems like a waste of time to me. Losing the transfer openings, the system is imo quite rubbish. Playing 4 card Majors in such a structure is more out of principle rather than efficiency...

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

Bundle single suited hands with Clubs into the 1♦ opening. 1♦ now promises either

A single suited hand with Diamonds or
A single suited hand with Clubs or
A two suited hand with both minors

Are you saying that a 1♦ opening like this is legal, but a 1♦ opening promising ♥ is illegal?

[hrothgar]

EricK, on Dec 8 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 7 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

Bundle single suited hands with Clubs into the 1♦ opening.  1♦ now promises either

A single suited hand with Diamonds or
A single suited hand with Clubs or
A two suited hand with both minors

Are you saying that a 1♦ opening like this is legal, but a 1♦ opening promising ♥ is illegal?

Both this 1♦ and a 1♦ opening promising hearts are legal at the GCC level. However:

If I play a 1♦ opening showing Hearts, I still need to figure out what to do with a 1♥ opening. Furthermore, most every useful definition for 1♥ would be illegal.

[Flame]

I like the natural 2C, its discribe the hand very well and has a premptive value as well and therefore wouldnt put this hand into the 1D.
Maybe you should had more bal into 1D, you can add the 14-15(16) bal and make your 1C stronger, you might do even better playing variable 1NT and had the other range into the 1D. (maybe even 1NT=10-12 at some situations).
If it was my system i would even take out the diamond 1 suiter into a nat 2D, and make 1D to be a bal/semi bal with a bigger range.

[ASkolnick]

hrothgar,
We have been tweaking with a somewhat similar system but with a canape style in the majors. Our minors are natural for preemptive value. We use Zar points for evaluation.

1C Shows an intermediate two-suited hand. Haven't figure out the best responses for this yet. I have a few ideas though.
1D Shows a strong single suited, balanced, or huge two suiter. Plays like a Mexican 2D, but 1 level cheaper.
1H Canape, longer minor OK. 4-5 thinking about expanding to 4-6
1S Canape, longer minor OK. 4-5 max thinking about expanding to 4-6 but I think its less necessary.
1N Balanced Min, No 4 card major unless 4-3-3-3. Can be 5-4 in the minors. Sometimes you don't find your fit, but lots of times they don't find their major suit fit which ranks higher.
2X 6 of suit. What I call 1.5 bids (between HCP of 1 and 2 bid). Minors can be (3-1-5-4). Majors should deny 3 of the other major.
2N Minors.

I think you want to take advantage of opening at the 2 level and taking up bidding space.

Through coincidence, our system winds up being very similar in fashion to something known as the Burgay Diamond. He wants to bid at the 3 level with any 6-4 in the minors. This makes sense since he wants to put maximum pressure on someone trying to find there major suit fit.

And, no, I do not believe opening 1D showing hearts is GCC legal.

[lexlogan]

Seems like 5332's (either major, any doubleton) are awkward hands playing 4 card majors. I doubt it's effective to lump them into a weak notrump, and no rebid seems satisfactory over 1NT. One possibility would be to open 1D with any two-suiter that includes diamonds, or a diamond single-suiter; then use 1M-1NT-2D for the 5332's. Probably doesn't suit your taste or overall scheme but was just a thought.

One friend of mine uses 1D for 15-17 balanced. Seem like you could combine that with the diamond single-suiters and minor two-suiters to get a fair frequency of use. Presumably, the strong hand would double any interference bid.