[hrothgar]

I'm in the process of putting together a Full Disclosure file for MOSCITO. As part of this, I need to decided on a NT structure once and for all...

The NT module will apply in a number of different situations including

1. After the 1st / 2nd seat 11+ - 14 HCP 1NT opening

2. After the 3rd / 4th seat 14 - 16 HCP 1NT opening

3. After a NT rebid following the strong club opening:

1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT
1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT
(Following 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT relay methods apply)

I'd like to FINALLY officially switch to a more comprehensive structure. The introduction of Full Disclosure seems to be a reasonable time to make the jump. As always, I'm torn between Keri and the Scanian structures. I've always prefered the Scanian but I'm open to compromise.

Please let me know if anyone who plays the system has a strong preference...

[han]

One vote for Scanian from me.

[1eyedjack]

Given your willingness to consider importing a standard external response structure I speculate that the situation seems modular. Any reason for insisting on a particular module, rather than letting the user import the module that he prefers? I don't know Keri or Scanian, so am not well placed to choose between them nor indeed to compare them with my own preferred methods that I introduced at
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=37834

However, if I were playing Moscito with a regular partner I would currently prefer to import my own module of responses to a 1N opener, and I do not see this as materially impacting on the philosophy of Moscito.

I am certainly no authority no Moscito but are you not more restricted on the possession of 4 card majors when opening 1NT? If that is the case then it is not a modular situation and importing ANY pre-compiled module of responses from outside may be inappropriate.

[david_c]

1eyedjack, on Sep 24 2005, 11:32 AM, said:

However, if I were playing Moscito with a regular partner I would currently prefer to import my own module of responses to a 1N opener, and I do not see this as materially impacting on the philosophy of Moscito.

Agree. From my point of view, it would be great if there was a standard version of Moscito, as then it might be worthwhile trying to learn the complete system. However I'm less likely to want to do this if it would involve learning a new 1NT structure as well.

[hrothgar]

1eyedjack, on Sep 24 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

if I were playing Moscito with a regular partner I would currently prefer to import my own module of responses to a 1N opener, and I do not see this as materially impacting on the philosophy of Moscito.

I am certainly no authority no Moscito but are you not more restricted on the possession of 4 card majors when opening 1NT? If that is the case then it is not a modular situation and importing ANY pre-compiled module of responses from outside may be inappropriate.

Three comments:

1. MOSCITO's major suit opening style makes the 1NT opening a bit "idiosyncratic". While the first/second seat 1NT opening normally shows 11+ - 14 HCP, it denies a balanced 11-12 count with Spade or a 13-13 count with Hearts (unless prescisely 3=4=3=3). A argument could be made that the NT structure should be customized arround these design choices.

2. Equally significant, the NT module will be applied opposite a number of quite different different rebids: As noted before, the 3rd / 4th seat NT opening shows 14-16 HCP. More significantly, the NT responder has denied a number of strong hand types. The NT rebid after the auction 1♣ - 1♥ is very limited in strength while the NT rebid after 1♣ - 1♠ is very wide ranging. Here once again, the argument could be made to customize the structure (perhaps adopting a Crowhurst type range ask after 1♣ - 1♠)

With this said and done, its unclear whether the gains in efficient would necessarily balance out the added memory load. I suspect that its better to have a single NT structure, get as much practice as possible, and learn to play it well rather than trying to keep track of an amazing number of specialized agreements.

3. People are welcome to use whatever NT structure they want. I don't consider the choice of NT structures to be integral to the definition of the system. Even so, I need to choose one for the MOSCITO structure that I'll be documenting...

[1eyedjack]

For those of us currently unfamiliar with Keri and/or Scanian responses, are these freely available somewhere on the net or do you have to pay for the book? I did a bit of Googling but I guess my choice of key words was either too general or too specific.

[DenisO]

hrothgar, on Sep 24 2005, 12:40 PM, said:

3. People are welcome to use whatever NT structure they want.  I don't consider the choice of NT structures to be integral to the definition of the system.  Even so, I need to choose one for the MOSCITO structure that I'll be documenting...

It would be nice to see an 'official' version of Moscito and I thought that this what Paul Marston had started to do with his first version of the booklet which was released recently - even better if it was accompanied by an FD file

So a couple of questions:

Is the system you are documenting the same as Marston's or your own variant?

Does Marston suggest a NT structure or does he feel like you that is up to partnerships?

[keylime]

Scanian for me please, with extra sauce, and ty :-)

[hrothgar]

DenisO, on Sep 24 2005, 06:50 PM, said:

Is the system you are documenting the same as Marston's or your own variant?

Does Marston suggest a NT structure or does he feel like you that is up to partnerships?

Paul and I have some philosophical differences regarding what the continued evolution of MOSCITO. Paul's main goal is making it as easy as possible to introduce the system to new players. Accordingly, he a presenting a very simple version of the system. He has made a number of tradeoffs that (I believe) compromise the integrity of the system in order make it more palatable. Using 2/1 responses as natural and forcing is one prominant example. His realy structures are also designed to be natural whenever possible. My main goal is developing a system that I feel will be highly effective. Equally significant, I think that its easier to remember a system that is logically consistant rather than one which is natural.

Accordingly, the two systems are starting to diverge from one another. The main differences are the response structures over the constructive openings and the relay structures over 1
♦ and 1♥.

I doubt that Paul will go so far as to impose a NT structures...

[akhare]

hrothgar, on Sep 23 2005, 06:38 PM, said:

I'm in the process of putting together a Full Disclosure file for MOSCITO. As part of this, I need to decided on a NT structure once and for all...

The NT module will apply in a number of different situations including

1. After the 1st / 2nd seat 11+ - 14 HCP 1NT opening

2. After the 3rd / 4th seat 14 - 16 HCP 1NT opening

3. After a NT rebid following the strong club opening:

1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT
1♣ - 1♠ - 1NT
(Following 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT relay methods apply)

I'd like to FINALLY officially switch to a more comprehensive structure. The introduction of Full Disclosure seems to be a reasonable time to make the jump. As always, I'm torn between Keri and the Scanian structures. I've always prefered the Scanian but I'm open to compromise.

Please let me know if anyone who plays the system has a strong preference...

That said, cast my vote for Scanian please -- it's been a while since I have looked at Keri, but it struck me as being very complex.

Atul

[Free]

Here's what I play:

2♣ = relay, 0+HCP, many hands
2♦/♥ = transfer, 5+♥/♠
2♠ = transfer ♣ OR GF with (31)-(54) or alike
2NT = transfer ♦ OR GF with 5-3M (no slam)
3♣ = both minors, signoff
3♦ = 55+♠-♥, invitational or stronger
3♥ = GF 1-4-4-4 or alike
3♠ = GF 4-1-4-4 or alike
3NT = to play
4♣ = step Gerber
4♦/♥ = transfer, 6+♥/♠, signoff
4♠ = quantitative 5NT
4NT = normal quantitative

2♣ can be done with:
- garbage stayman
- invitational hands without 5M (4M possible)
- GF with 5-4 or 6-4M
- GF with 4M and 6+m
- any GF which wants to investigate something
It contains a full relay structure. Since 1NT-2♣;2♠ shows a maximum hand, we use 2NT as a relay, so we can show ALL handtypes (also 5332's) under 3NT. After 2♦ and 2♥ responses, 2♠ is the GF relay.

It's simple and efficient

[akhare]

Free, on Sep 25 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

Here's what I play:

2♣ = relay, 0+HCP, many hands
2♦/♥ = transfer, 5+♥/♠
2♠ = transfer ♣ OR GF with (31)-(54) or alike
2NT = transfer ♦ OR GF with 5-3M (no slam)
3♣ = both minors, signoff
3♦ = 55+♠-♥, invitational or stronger
3♥ = GF 1-4-4-4 or alike
3♠ = GF 4-1-4-4 or alike
3NT = to play
4♣ = step Gerber
4♦/♥ = transfer, 6+♥/♠, signoff
4♠ = quantitative 5NT
4NT = normal quantitative

2♣ can be done with:
- garbage stayman
- invitational hands without 5M (4M possible)
- GF with 5-4 or 6-4M
- GF with 4M and 6+m
- any GF which wants to investigate something
It contains a full relay structure. Since 1NT-2♣;2♠ shows a maximum hand, we use 2NT as a relay, so we can show ALL handtypes (also 5332's) under 3NT. After 2♦ and 2♥ responses, 2♠ is the GF relay.

It's simple and efficient

Free's system for president -- oops wrong forum -- anyway, looks really good...

Atul

[Blofeld]

I'd like to learn MOSCITO at some point, and a standardised version would definitely be helpful.

I'm not familiar with Scanian (again, is there a description somewhere on the web?), but I like Keri a lot.

[sartaj1]

hrothgar, on Sep 24 2005, 12:45 PM, said:

He has made a number of tradeoffs that (I believe) compromise the integrity of the system in order make it more palatable.  Using 2/1 responses as natural and forcing is one prominant example. 

PM felt there was limited utility in playing non-forcing responses to 1 level openings. Using the 2/1 F1 approach helps to accurately progress the invitational type hands with distributional features.
The idea was to take pressure off the relay and involve the opener in a dialogue on hands where game was very likely to be touch and go. Such situations would be better resolved using judgement more than (apparent) precision.

I do remember him throwing a spastic when i once made a 2/1 with a game-going hand. No No....That hand MUST relay.

[hrothgar]

sartaj1, on Sep 30 2005, 05:09 AM, said:

PM felt there was limited utility in playing non-forcing responses to 1 level openings. Using the 2/1 F1 approach helps to accurately progress the invitational type hands with distributional features.

Hi Sartaj...

I remember a couple email exchanges with Paul when he was originally consider transitioning to 2/1 style based on 1-round force responses.

You are most certainly correct that the frequency of the NNF 2/1s was a major concern. The 2/1s simply don't occur all that much. You need a fairly precise range. At lot of the common hand patterns with 5332s often prefer to bid 1NT. Increasing the range of the response definitely helps the frequency.

Even so, I'm never be comfortable with the change. IF you want to abandon the NNF 2/1 - and this is a big if - I think that it makes sense to move away from relay and adopt a structure based on transfer responses.

Ultimately, it seemed to be a matter of taste...

De gustibus non est disputandum