[cwiggins]

The following uses Moscito's 1C opening and borrows from "New Awakening" but limits the rebids per Moscito's limits.

So in first and second seat:
1C = 15+ any
1D = 4+ diamonds, unbalanced, (9 with a good 6-card suit). Either 1-suited in diamonds or 2 suited with second suit longer (canape)
1M = 4+. Unless 5+M and 4+C, longer second suit elsewhere. Canape unless rebid 2M, in which case 5+M and 4+C
1N = 11-14 balanced
2C = 6+ clubs; others < 4 long
2D = Any 4441 or 5m440
2M = 6+ major; all other suits < 4 long
2N = 5+/5+ in majors with 12-14 HCP

Since 1D and 1M are unbalanced, 1N is logically forcing.

With unbalanced hands, use a rule of 18 to determine whether to open. So 2C and 2M are functionally 9-14 HCP, about the same size of range as a standard weak 2.

In third and fourth seats:
1C = 17+ HCP, so other bids are limited to 16.
1N = 14-16
Other bids have their upper limit lifted to 16. In fourth suit, the lower limit is probably a solid 12 or 13 HCP: partner is in the 0-8/9 HCP range if unbalanced, and 0-10 HCP if balanced. The hand probably belongs to the opponents, absent distribution. (I've considered using standard 5CM, 14-16 NT in third and fourth.)

Understanding the benefits of Moscito's transfer openings, this structure potentially has one advantage that is overwhelming for me: I think it is legal in the ACBL under even the GCC.

Observations from those with experience with Moscito or light opening bids on strengths, weaknesses, and pitfalls about this structure would be appreciated.

Lastly: has Marston published a Moscito update beyond the 2005 version? Or has Marston updated it but not published it? If so, is there information available about the changes?

Thanks for any help you provide.

[Chris2794]

I prefer the german Moscito

1♣ = 15+
1♦ = 9-14 any shape without 4+ major
1♥ = 9-14 4+ ♥ no 4+ ♠
1♠ = 9-14 4+ ♠ no 4+ ♥ always unbal.
1NT = 10-14 4+ ♠ bal. (can be 5 ♠ or both majors)
2♣ = 9-14 at least 5-4 in majors
2♦ = W2 in a Major
2♥ = 9-14 3 suiter with 4-4 in Majors
2♠ = ♠ and a minor (weak and at least 5-4)
2NT = ♥ and a minor (weak ant at least 5-5) or semiforcing in a Major

in 3rd / 4rd hand is 1♣17+ 1N = 15-17

[Free]

Chris2794, on Jun 27 2009, 08:42 AM, said:

I prefer the german Moscito

1♣ = 15+
1♦ = 9-14 any shape without 4+ major
1♥ = 9-14 4+ ♥ no 4+ ♠
1♠ = 9-14 4+ ♠ no 4+ ♥ always unbal.
1NT = 10-14 4+ ♠ bal. (can be 5 ♠ or both majors)
2♣ = 9-14 at least 5-4 in majors
2♦ = W2 in a Major
2♥ = 9-14 3 suiter with 4-4 in Majors
2♠ = ♠ and a minor (weak and at least 5-4)
2NT = ♥ and a minor (weak ant at least 5-5) or semiforcing in a Major

in 3rd / 4rd hand is 1♣17+ 1N = 15-17

BLEH! A huge advantage of real moscito is that there's always a 4+ card suit known. Here you have a nebulous 1♦ opening...

[Free]

cwiggins, on Jun 27 2009, 07:13 AM, said:

The following uses Moscito's 1C opening and borrows from "New Awakening" but limits the rebids per Moscito's limits.

So in first and second seat:
1C = 15+ any
1D = 4+ diamonds, unbalanced, (9 with a good 6-card suit).  Either 1-suited in diamonds or 2 suited with second suit longer (canape)
1M = 4+.  Unless 5+M and 4+C, longer second suit elsewhere.  Canape unless rebid 2M, in which case 5+M and 4+C
1N = 11-14 balanced
2C = 6+ clubs; others < 4 long
2D = Any 4441 or 5m440
2M = 6+ major; all other suits < 4 long
2N = 5+/5+ in majors with 12-14 HCP

Since 1D and 1M are unbalanced, 1N is logically forcing.

I've played a lot of MOSCITO a few years ago, both online and IRL.

Some remarks:

- Why the 2♦ opener? Doesn't seem to solve a problem.

- I don't like the 2NT opening. Normally, MOSCITO doesn't use canapé for Major suit openings, which makes this 2NT opening unnecessary. I guess you want to open canapé with both Majors and want to avoid playing in the wrong fit when you have a 5-5. I'd rather use the 2♦ opening for something like this.
It's understandable you play this way, since with 5M-4♦ there's no need to open 1M anymore. 1♦ is lower than the original opening bid (1♠) so you can include more handtypes.

- This system uses more canapé than original MOSCITO (uses only canapé when you have both minors or a 4M-5m, but not with 4M-6m). This may be a good thing, but may be a disadvantage as well. I guess you can use 1♦-1M as 3+M (if that's legal?), which can be difficult to defend against.

- I don't find an opening bid for 5♦-4♣. I guess you also open 1♦ and rebid 1NT or 2♣.

- Personally I would open 2M with 5M-4♣, and use 1M openings + 2M rebid as 6+M. This way, your 1M openings never contain a 5 card M suit (unless 5M-6X perhaps), which makes it easier for partner.

[hrothgar]

I think that you're starting at the wrong point:

Its relatively easy to design a MOSCITO like opening structure that's GCC legal.

Designing a workable response structure that doesn't require either

1. Game invitational relays
2. Transfer responses

is extremely difficult. (I'd argue that its not worth the effort)

I recommend starting by assuming that you're playing

a 1♠ opening that promises an unbalanced hand with 4+ Spades
Might have a longer minor
denies 4-4 in the majors

and shows 8+ 14 HCP or so

See if you can come up with a response structure that you're happy with.

If you can, start looking into designing a response structure over a reasonably similar 1♥ opening.

[cwiggins]

German Moscito is not GCC legal: 2D (multi) is not for sure. Some of the others are not clear to me.

As one responder noted: 1D is not nebulous. It is 4+ long. I looked at making 1N = 10-12 and putting balanced 12-14 (12 with 2 4-card majors) into 1D.

After 1D-1M:
- If responder bid your shortness, bid 1NT with 5-4 in the minors. So 2C = 6-4.
- If responder did not bid your short suit, 2C is 5-4 either way or 6C and 4D.

Using canape more was a design goal: canape openings make standard takeout doubles less frequent.

It does seem legal to respond 1M with 3+ cards.

The 2D opening permits a rebid after a 1D/H/S opening to be a 5+ card suit. This was for simplicity.

The reason for putting the one-suited majors at 2M was ... I was robbing something from another system. Hrothgar's suggestion about putting the one-suited majors into a major so that 1M is always 4 or 6 seems good.

The reason for this structure was to create an opening structure that a reasonable response structure could be created. The results were good when using the hands from the recent USBF finals playoff for USA 2.

Let me go back and review what happens when Hrothgar's suggestion is incorporated.

[shevek]

I played virtually this exact system in last 2 fall nats.