[Chris2794]

[hrothgar]

Seems surprising that the poll doesn't include the current version...

(When I think original MOSCITO I think)

1♣ = strong
1♦ = no major
1♥ = 4+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades
1♠ = 4+ Spades, 0-3 Hearts
1N = Both majors
2♣+ = Preempts

When I think of MOSCITO, I think

1♣ = strong
1♦ = 4+ Hearts
1♥ = 4+ Spades
1♠ = 4+ Diamonds, unbalanced
1N = 11+ - 14
2♣+ = 6+ Clubs

[shevek]

Don't quite understand the question.
Does the Moscito umbrella lay claim to any method with strong club, 4-card majors & symmetric relay?

That's like saying that Kaplan-Sheinwold is Acol with 5-card majors, or 2/1 is modern Goren.
There are a few home-grown strong club relay systems in Australasia. For some, the ancestor is the late 70s Kiwi Club by Roy Kerr, Paul Marston & Malcolm Sims. That featured 5-card majors. I associate it with Kerr, since he devised the relay structure. There were independent strong pass systems that developed from it, by Burgess - Marston, Blackstock - Newell, Hughes - Morgan, etc. They were similar because they began with the same basic relay structure, even though they all changed it quite a bit.
Paul Marston devised original Moscito around 1987, mainly because Strong Pass became illegal in many events. That featured natural 1H & 1S openings but he changed it regularly. First change was 1D = spades, then 1NT = majors was added by Peter Buchen. At the same time, people like Bruce Neill began using 1-level transfers. Bob Richman had his own ideas.
Note that neither Neill nor Richman called their methods Moscito, which was just a catchy acronym. Marston switched to transfers early this century.

We play a method based on 1D - spades, 1H = hearts, 1S = majors & get a bit touchy when people ask "Is that like Moscito?" Ours is 16+ 1C & way make big use of the denied major, which Marston has more or less abandoned.

[Chris2794]

The german Version of Moscito is

1♣ = 15+
1♦ = 9-14 any shape without a 4+ card Major
1♥ = 9-14 4+ H, no 4+ S
1♠ = 9-14 4+ S, no 4+ H, unbalanced
1NT = 10-14, 4+ S balanced (5 S or 44 in Maj. possible)
2♣ = 9-14, 5+ 4+ in Maj.
2♦ = Weak Two in a Major
2♥ = 3-suiter with 4-4 in Maj
2♠ = 5S and a 4+ Minor
2NT = 5H and a 5+MINOR or Semiforcing in a Major

but in only in 1/2 Hand, in 3/4 Hand is 1C 17+, a Major opening can have the other Major but only a 4 card in it, 1S can be balanced, 1NT opening is 15-17

[csdenmark]

I dont like Moscito. I think it is a rubbish system.

If it has to be - then the original pass version.

I think Regres and Suspensor are the superior systems.

[Free]

hrothgar, on Dec 23 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

When I think of MOSCITO, I think

1♣ = strong
1♦ = 4+ Hearts
1♥ = 4+ Spades
1♠ = 4+ Diamonds, unbalanced
1N = 11+ - 14
2♣+ = 6+ Clubs

Same here, but in the newest versions 1♦ and 1♥ are also unbalanced (1NT rebid shows longer m or 4441 - unless you open 1NT with 4441 hands). Also the step relay is natural NT response, or GF relay.

I think this is a clear improvement of what we've played some years ago.

Oh, and don't forget the transfer responses to transfer openings!

[Flame]

I dont like transfer opening, i think its a big mistake because reponder can rarly pass which is bad because
1.The other bids needs to include more hands.
2. Opponents can easily pass because the bidding will usually continue.
3. It takes our flexibility to make a decision whather to bid or pass which might make our system harder to defend.
Beside that transfer opening give the opponents an easy double that unlike normal takeout double when the responder to the double must take out, this time responder to the double can easily pass.
And last it gives the opponents and easy cue bid at low level.
So I'll take anything that dont have trasnfer openings.

[hrothgar]

Flame, on Dec 23 2008, 11:56 PM, said:

I dont like transfer opening, i think its a big mistake because reponder can rarly pass which is bad because
1.The other bids needs to include more hands.
2. Opponents can easily pass because the bidding will usually continue.
3. It takes our flexibility to make a decision whather to bid or pass which might make our system harder to defend.
Beside that transfer opening give the opponents an easy double that unlike normal takeout double when the responder to the double must take out, this time responder to the double can easily pass.
And last it gives the opponents and easy cue bid at low level.
So I'll take anything that dont have trasnfer openings.

You're making a BUNCH of conclusions based on an erroneous assumption...

Playing MOSCITO with transfer openings, responder will routinely pass a transfer opening with 0-6 HCPs... If you respond to an opening bid, you are promising values.

There are some exceptions to this rule:

Responder might chose to bid 2M holding 3-5 HCP, 4 card trump support and a flat hand. Following a 1♥ opening, 2♠ would be reasonable with

♠ xxxx
♥ xx
♦ Kxx
♣ xxxx

Responder is overstating his high card strength, but he does have an extra trump. I'd happily pass 1♥ holding

♠ Kxx
♥ xx
♦ xxxx
♣ xxxx

The opps should have at least the equivalent of a 23 High Card Points between their two hands... Odds are they are making 3N. (In general, if a MOSCITO auction goes- float, I expect to go negative. However, I also expect that the opponents have a nice score their way)

Responder might also consider pulling with a single suited hand with a 7+ card suit.

In general, if you're willing to take a bid with an understrength hand, you need to be willing to pull partner's penalty double.

[matmat]

a dead moscito.

[shevek]

hrothgar, on Dec 23 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

Flame, on Dec 23 2008, 11:56 PM, said:

I dont like transfer opening, i think its a big mistake because reponder can rarly pass which is bad because
1.The other bids needs to include more hands.
2. Opponents can easily pass because the bidding will usually continue.
3. It takes our flexibility to make a decision whather to bid or pass which might make our system harder to defend.
Beside that transfer opening give the opponents an easy double that unlike normal takeout double when the responder to the double must take out, this time responder to the double can easily pass.
And last it gives the opponents and easy cue bid at low level.
So I'll take anything that dont have trasnfer openings.

You're making a BUNCH of conclusions based on an erroneous assumption...

Playing MOSCITO with transfer openings, responder will routinely pass a transfer opening with 0-6 HCPs... If you respond to an opening bid, you are promising values.

There are some exceptions to this rule:

Responder might chose to bid 2M holding 3-5 HCP, 4 card trump support and a flat hand. Following a 1♥ opening, 2♠ would be reasonable with

♠ xxxx
♥ xx
♦ Kxx
♣ xxxx

Responder is overstating his high card strength, but he does have an extra trump. I'd happily pass 1♥ holding

♠ Kxx
♥ xx
♦ xxxx
♣ xxxx

The opps should have at least the equivalent of a 23 High Card Points between their two hands... Odds are they are making 3N. (In general, if a MOSCITO auction goes- float, I expect to go negative. However, I also expect that the opponents have a nice score their way)

Responder might also consider pulling with a single suited hand with a 7+ card suit.

In general, if you're willing to take a bid with an understrength hand, you need to be willing to pull partner's penalty double.

There are gains and losses with 1-level transfers.
Gains include
+ right-siding most 4M contracts
+ extra relay steps to save space, or throw in hands with both majors
+ one more natural response. 1♦ (hearts) - 1♠ is now possible. If 1♥ shows hearts, then 1♠ response is relay and responder has to do something else with long spades.

Negatives are more nebulous
- opponents get an extra step. I like (1♦) X as tko of hearts, 1♥ natural. X as tko is safer than usual, avoiding most penalties that can follow (1z) X (XX). Other good methods include cue as shapely tko, X as stronger, etc.
- can't sit in 1M. Opposite 1♥ = spades, a simple hand like
♠Qxx ♥xx ♦Kxxx ♣xxxx
is awkward. Pass is wrong, leaving your fate to the whim of 4th player, while 2♠ & 1NT are bad too. These bids need to show values, say 7-10, else constructive bidding is compromised.
- Diluting the denied major. MO stands for major-oriented but this is being lost. In original Moscito, bids from 1♥ up denied at least 1 major. This helped responder diagnose fits for both sides. Current Moscito is poor here, with major hands spread about from 1♦ to 2♣, leaving you with SCITO.
- Lawmakers tend to frown on systems where 1M openings are not natural

[the hog]

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 09:33 PM, said:

I dont like Moscito. I think it is a rubbish system.

If it has to be - then the original pass version.

I think Regres and Suspensor are the superior systems.

How many times? Claus the original Moscito was NOT a strong pass system. What part of that do you not understand?

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Dec 24 2008, 03:04 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Dec 23 2008, 09:33 PM, said:

I dont like Moscito. I think it is a rubbish system.

If it has to be - then the original pass version.

I think Regres and Suspensor are the superior systems.

How many times? Claus the original Moscito was NOT a strong pass system. What part of that do you not understand?

Then it was what Ron?

This is the file I received from you: http://bridgefiles.n...ngPass-full.htm

I think I have understood the system(maybe except Aspro conv), but I think it is a poor system compared to the polish systems.

[the hog]

The original system I sent you was WOR. Not Moscito. You wanted a Strong Pass system.

[csdenmark]

The_Hog, on Dec 24 2008, 03:34 AM, said:

The original system I sent you was WOR. Not Moscito. You wanted a Strong Pass system.

Thank you Ron.

Then I only have to change the name from 'Moscito' to'Weak opening Relay'. Right?

If so I wonder what makes you prefer WOR?

You have something on Moscito perhaps?

Merry Christmas Ron.

[the hog]

What makes me prefer WOR? I like Strong Pass systems. Moscito is not a strong pass system
Happy Christmas and a Happy NY to you also Claus.
Ron

[ICEmachine]

what version was it that had 1♦ as 44+ in majors?

It also had a 11-14 nt opening that denied 4-card major...

[Apollo81]

I like any moscito that's not biting me.

[shevek]

ICEmachine, on Jan 11 2009, 09:23 PM, said:

what version was it that had 1♦ as 44+ in majors?

It also had a 11-14 nt opening that denied 4-card major...

so called original, around 1986 from memory.