[rogerclee]

I was thinking about a possible system this morning and I have some questions. The base of the system that I'm proposing is:

1C = 16+ any, 17+ if balanced
1D = 4+H, if 4 hearts then 4H/5m or 1444
1H = 4+S, if 4 spades then 4S/5m or 4144
1S = 11-13 balanced
1N = 14-16 balanced
2C = 11-15 6+C, unless 5C/4D
2D = 11-15 6+D, unless 5D/4C or 5-5 minors

I have some questions though.

1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the MOSCITO-ish 1D/1H openers? Would you rather play 1D shows spades and 1H is natural?
2) Would you rather play 1S is weaker or stronger than 1N?
3) Do you think it is effective to play a multi-way 1S? (ex: 1S = 11-13 or 20-21 balanced)
4) What do you think of this system overall?

[JLOGIC]

Clee is back!

[Zelandakh]

rogerclee, on 2011-December-19, 01:55, said:

1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the MOSCITO-ish 1D/1H openers? Would you rather play 1D shows spades and 1H is natural?
2) Would you rather play 1S is weaker or stronger than 1N?
3) Do you think it is effective to play a multi-way 1S? (ex: 1S = 11-13 or 20-21 balanced)
4) What do you think of this system overall?

1. The advantage is that you get an additional step in the relays. The disadvantage is that you cannot stop in 1 of Opener's major. I have played around alot with 1D = spades and it is great. However it would hurt your 1H openings alot since they are somewhat overloaded. Therefore I think the submarine opening method is probably better.
2. I would prefer 1NT weaker for maximum pressure.
3. That is certainly an option. Another possibility I have played around with quite alot is to use 1H as a multi-way bid that includes various balanced hands. Of course that would mean opening 1S with all of the spade hands - again overloaded. Would 1S as 5+ and 1H as balanced or 4 spades be an option for you?
4. It is always difficult to give a definitive answer on the effectiveness of a system just from looking at it on paper. It looks reasonable although you need to include an opening bid for 44(41) hands in the 11-15 range too.

[benlessard]

You have to tell us what will 1D-1H/1H-1S (accepting the transfer) mean ?

Why mix transfers openings with strong club ? When you open 1D/1H you show a suit and keep the auction open so you will be able to show strength easily. Limited opening are wasting bidding space that can easily be filled with strong hands. All this for being able to bid 1H-4H with values or to let responder psych a response ?

[Free]

1. The disadvantage is that it gives opps an extra step and when responder has trash he has to pass (may be a good or bad thing). The advantages are many imo:
- you gain an extra step, which allows us to use natural bidding AND relays
- when you relay and eventually play in the Major, the known hand becomes dummy
- you can use a relay as any strength and let opener rebid natural. If he rebids 1NT, it shows a longer m. If he rebids something else it shows 5+M.
- when you raise, opener (the best known hand) becomes dummy
- minor suited hands are opened higher, which makes them more preemptive (in MOSCITO 1♠ shows a singlesuiter ♦ or a minor 2-suiter)
I would NOT prefer to swap 1♦ and 1♥ around because you lose the advantages of a transfer opening in ♥ and gain little in return. Perhaps you can now open 1♦ with balanced hands and ♠, making your NT openings deny 4+♠, but I'm not sure this is really worth it.

2. This depends on what you prefer imo. If you want unknown hands to declare, then keep the strong NT (11-13 is more frequent). If you want pressure, you could use the weak NT. If you prefer safety or some mix, you can make it vulnerability dependent.
If you like to let responder play more often, then it may make sense to reverse the meanings of 1♦ and 1♥, so your NT openings don't contain ♠. This way, opening 1♠ will already deny ♠s.

3. No, because if opps double or intervene, you'll get into trouble (since you're already pretty high to compete with 11-13 for example.

4. I don't like the 2m openings. I would rather play 1♠ as a minor 2-suiter and keep only 1 NT-range. But then you might as well play MOSCITO and combine the minor 2-suiter and the 2♦ singlesuiter...
Also, I prefer to consider 4441's as balanced (except with 4-4M). That way, you have the following situations:
- 4-4M: open 1♦ and rebid 1♠ after responder's 1♥
- 4-1M: open 1NT (or 1♠ if you consider this balanced)
This way, opener can always rebid 1NT with 4M-5m after which responder can use 2♣ as P/C.

[hrothgar]

rogerclee, on 2011-December-19, 01:55, said:

1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the MOSCITO-ish 1D/1H openers? Would you rather play 1D shows spades and 1H is natural?
2) Would you rather play 1S is weaker or stronger than 1N?
3) Do you think it is effective to play a multi-way 1S? (ex: 1S = 11-13 or 20-21 balanced)
4) What do you think of this system overall?

Here's my take on the pros / cons of 1D = Spades, 1H = natural

Pros:

MOSCITO uses relatively sound responses to the transfer openings. As a result, you often need to pass 1D/1H with weak hands (0-7) HCP.
Being able to pass out a 1H opening that shows 4 Hearts is a lot less stressful.
(I don't recall many times when we got badly burned because we passed out 1D or 1H, however, it does cause a certain amount of anxiety)

Cons

You can't bid 1S naturally over 1H (this is actually very significant)
The transfer openings will hopefully right side Heart/Spade contracts and ensure that relay responder is dummy

[Zelandakh]

benlessard, on 2011-December-19, 05:52, said:

You have to tell us what will 1D-1H/1H-1S (accepting the transfer) mean ?

This is universally played as a relay. The extra step in relay auctions is extremely valuable.

[hrothgar]

benlessard, on 2011-December-19, 05:52, said:

Why mix transfers openings with strong club?

In my mind, the casual chain goes something like this:

1. I want to play a bidding system that uses very light / limited openings (Say, 8+ --> 14 HCP)

2. Limited openings require that I play a strong club system

3. Traditional response structures like 2/1 GF don't work well when we are regularly opening 8 counts
(A) The frequency with which responder can initiate a GF is extremely low
(B) Its more important to dedicate high level bids for a combination of preemption and game exploration

4. I prefer to use a system based on relays rather than transfer responses

5. If I am playing relays, transfer openings make a hell of a lot of sense
(A) I am able to align the level of my opening bids with their frequency (Especially in a major's first opening style)
(B) I will right side the most likely major suit contract

[MickyB]

1) Hrothgar basically covered this one. If playing relays I like the transfer openings, right-siding makes a fair difference here.

2) My instinct is that 1S as weaker is better, but it's close for sure. While a direct 1NT is more preemptive, you'll escape a lot of penalties by bidding 1S-X-P "to play opposite four spades". Either way, you'll need to agree whether 1S-P-P invites opener to compete to 2♠ later. There is also the issue of right-siding opposite 14-16 [not a major factor, admittedly].

3) 1♠ as 14-16 or 20-21 would work well competitively. You want a three point gap between your ranges, because a hand that wishes to compete opposite a 14-count will be happy to game-force opposite a 20-count - this is much like a Polish/Swedish club, where you compete opposite a weak NT and are then game-forced opposite the strong type. Obviously, right-siding here is a bigger issue.

A bit more "out there" would be to play 1S as 11-13 balanced or some specific unbalanced strong hands. For example, 4M6m 16-18 feels like a tricky hand to show in competition having opened 1C, or you could look at your uncontested responses and see what hands present a problem.

4) I like it. I think it's a big improvement to play 1D and 1H as promising an unbalanced hand, and if Fantunes can make their two-level openings work than your 2m openings should do well.

You didn't mention 44(14), I assume these open 1D?

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on 2011-December-19, 10:24, said:

1) Hrothgar basically covered this one. If playing relays I like the transfer openings, right-siding makes a fair difference here.

Over time, I've become convinced that having a natural 1♠ responses to a "1♦ (showing hearts)" opening might be more important than the whole right siding thing...

You're (heart showing) opening is going to be very common.
No being able to show hands with 4+ spades at the once level is going to make your life very awkward...

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-19, 11:17, said:

Over time, I've become convinced that having a natural 1♠ responses to a "1♦ (showing hearts)" opening might be more important than the whole right siding thing...

You're (heart showing) opening is going to be very common.
No being able to show hands with 4+ spades at the once level is going to make your life very awkward...

Responding to such a 1H opening, I'd be inclined to play a KI style structure [now 1N = D, 2C = nat, 2D = 5H4S] that leads on to relays. 1H:1NT could then show 5+spades.

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on 2011-December-19, 11:26, said:

Responding to such a 1H opening, I'd be inclined to play a KI style structure [now 1N = D, 2C = nat, 2D = 5H4S] that leads on to relays. 1H:1NT could then show 5+spades.

Good comment. I had forgetting that clee is suggesting an unbalanced opening so you don't want/need a natural nonforcing 1NT response

[MickyB]

This thread has got me revisiting a system I played briefly a while back with an otherwise similar 1H opening that denied 4 spades. I made a bit of a mess of the responses, using 1NT as a GF relay and 2♣ as 5+♠. Something like 1H:1S, 1NT showing 4H5m with 2♣ PoC and 2♦ relay sounds quite workable in this context, freeing up 1H:1NT to show 5♠.

[Fluffy]

I am curious as to how to entangle 4M-5m to 5M-4m hands. One of the advantages of playing 1♠ as weaker range is that it might be passed without spades, pressure is still there.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on 2011-December-19, 13:06, said:

I am curious as to how to entangle 4M-5m to 5M-4m hands.

MOSCITO assumes that its often better to quickly bash your way to an adequate contract rather than having a long, involved auction searching for the optimal contract.

The major suit raise structure focused on providing specific information about responder's trump support. Opener knows whether he has 4 or 5+ card support and will bid accordingly.

For example, the auction

1♥ - (P) - 2♠ systemically promises 3 card Spade support. With 4+ card support you can pass or bid at the three level, but you don't get to bid 2♠. (Yes, we play a lot of Moysians at the two level. However, they often score well and we win big time when folks make bad balancing decisions)

The one major exception to this is the relay response structure over limited openings. If responder relays over 1♦ or 1♥, opener's first priority is to clarify whether he has 4 or 5+ cards in his major and, if possible, show range.

[Free]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-19, 09:35, said:

4. I prefer to use a system based on relays rather than transfer responses

In the newer MOSCITO versions you have both!

For example, after 1♦ (showing 4+♥):
1♥ = relay, either any balanced hand without fit or GF relay
1♠ = natural, F1
1NT = transfer ♣ (less than GF)
2♣ = transfer ♦ (less than GF)
2♦ = constructive 3 card ♥ raise
2♥ = weak 3 card ♥ raise

I really like this structure!

[Zmud99]

Free, on 2011-December-20, 00:18, said:

In the newer MOSCITO versions you have both!

For example, after 1♦ (showing 4+♥):
1♥ = relay, either any balanced hand without fit or GF relay
1♠ = natural, F1
1NT = transfer ♣ (less than GF)
2♣ = transfer ♦ (less than GF)
2♦ = constructive 3 card ♥ raise
2♥ = weak 3 card ♥ raise

I really like this structure!

Hi,

I'm actually studying Moscito structure and try to do my best to rebuild some sequences

I really don't understand the point to play : 1NT = transfer ♣ (less than GF)? and
2♣ = transfer ♦ (less than GF)?

I really think that theses 2 sequences are useless and take away 2 very important bids for nothing -

Here's my structure regarding 1♦ opening ( showing ♥'s )
Comments and critizes are very welcome

1♦ = NV 9-14H 4+♥'s - canapé possible
VUL 12-15H

I decided to split majors opening into 2 ranges regarding of vulnerability

1♥ = Symetric relay or 4♥'s with 10-12H balanced ( in that case you will break next step relay to raise )

1♠ = 4+♠'s 0-11H

1NT = 0-11H

2♣ = 10-11H Balanced with 2 or 3♥'s ( opener can pass or correct to 2♦ if he get 4♥/5m)

2♦= a) 8-9H with 4♥'s balanced b) 9-11H with 4♥'s and a singleton c) 10-11 with 3♥'s + 6x

2♥ = Weak 3♥'s unbalanced or 4♥'s balanced - both with less than 8H

2♠ = 5♠ + 5m 11-13H

2NT to 3♦ = 4♥'s 7-9H splinter in ♠/♣/♦

As you can see 2♣ is 10-11H with a balanced hand - it work very well as opener can pass it , correct to 2♦ and immediately knows range of his responder - when he got 14 HCP he can react easily

Weak hands with ♣'s are in 1NT like others natural systems - Weak hands with ♦'s can pass 1♦opening

What do you think ?

[Free]

The reasoning is that natural bidding is better for game exploration, and relays are better for slam exploration. Whenever you have a GF opposite a limited opener, slam is quite likely opposite a maximum opener with the right distribution. When you have less than GF, chances of slam are quite small, so you retreat to natural bidding.

Opposite limited openers which only promisse 4+ cards in a suit, you want to be able to play in responder's suit. But we also want to have constructive natural bidding at our disposal. If you have to bid 1♦-2♣ with ♣, you have to treat it either natural NF and lose the INV+ hands, or natural F1 and lose the weak hands, but you can't combine both. So the best way to combine these hands in 1 bid is to use a transfer. 1♦-1NT showing ♣ combines the possibility to play 2♣, but also the possibility to invite, or to show a maximum hand with good 6+♣ and 3M support. Also, when the auction becomes competitive, opener can safely raise responder's suit. This is much better than for example a forcing 1NT in 2/1 GF, because our suit is known immediately (after the relay no suits are known because opener is either balanced - no suit - or has a GF hand which doesn't want to give information to opps).

The raise structure you propose is also not MOSCITO-like. We want to put pressure. With a 3 card support we bid at 2-level. This is a key concept! Opener knows if we have fit or not, and can produce some juicy penalty doubles when opps intervene and opener only has a 4 card suit (= when we don't have a fit). Raising with 4 card fit at 2-level ruins this whole idea. As a tradeoff, we raise to 3-level with a 4 card suit. For invites we have many ways available, so that's not an issue.

I must admit that 2♣ as a balanced INV is quite nice, and works better than my agreements (you can stay lower).

[kayin801]

Re #3: You are going to open 1♠ a lot.

That's a good thing IMO, though you're offered very little protection even compared to a 11-13 1NT opener at the wrong colors?

FWIW I've played a system with 1NT 15-17 and 1♦ as good 11-14 or 18-19 balanced (1♣ was 15+ unbal or 20-21 or 24+ bal), and I felt like I opened 1♦ every single hand and the unbalanced openings never came up. The only weird part is that we stuck balanced hands with 5 card majors in there, which was really awkward when you had 5 hearts and the bidding went 1♦-1♠, not sure if that was part of your plan or if you were going to open those hands in the major suit openings. It works fine though, with the split range its usually pretty easy for partner to determine what you have in competitive bidding and jumping/reversing resolves all the range issues in non-competitive bidding.

[hrothgar]

kayin801, on 2011-December-22, 09:45, said:

Re #3: You are going to open 1♠ a lot.

That's a good thing IMO, though you're offered very little protection even compared to a 11-13 1NT opener at the wrong colors?

Have you considered swapping the 1♠ and 1NT openings?

1. This is more preemptive
2. I suspect that its more difficult to the 1NT opening than the 1S opening. Therefore, I'd like to have more in reserve for the 1♠ opening.