[the hog]

It is not symmetric Luis. The symmetric structure treats 3 specific hand types - single suiters, 2 suiters and flat hands. Thae bastardised Neill scheme includes 4333s and 4432s in the s/s and 2 suited schema - a mistake in my view. I can live with your schema, but symmetric it is not. If you wish I can email you the symmetric engine. My concern was (is) that you are teaching people something played by only a handful around the world, wheras symmetric is known and understood by far more.

Kepping 4D as a teminator is not just because other relay system do it, but because CAB and denial cue bids together are not sufficient to investigate higher level contracts. Your CP are AK only. As I have pointed out you often need fillers to bid slams, hence you can use step after shape to ask for this hand type - AKQ controls, and other steps apart from 4D and 3NT to set suits when you are only interested in kc.

Ron

[inquiry]

No slam points and stopping auctions? How? Hopefully the same way almost all the other moscito systems I have read do. Note Rene's comment in this thread which was "Our experience with AKQ slam points has not been too convincing, so we switched back to simple AK controls and denial cues.

Ben

[hrothgar]

Here once again, I will note the following:

My impression is that AKQ Slam Points, End Signal, + RKCB is predominantly accepted as the standard treatment in MOSCITO. Sartaj and Ron have better visibility into what is in common practice down under, however, I'm pretty sure that the relay community is settling towards rough consensus.

I also think that AKQ slam points plus RKCB is more efficient, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Finally, my MOSCITO notes have 25 pages of notes and examples providing a nice complete description of this auction termination style. There is no way that I have enough time to duplicate this effort for a different termination scheme.

[mishovnbg]

Hi MOSCITO fans, not swatted yet !
I follow the discussion with interest, despite I dont like the idea of MOSCITO system. But will be interesting for me the discussion to be continued with important bids except openings and relays - answers, rebids... the difficult matter about competitive bidding and the overcall structure similar to MOSCITO... Relays after overcalls? Transfer answers to overcalls and take out dbl? My suggestions to continue with success for new fans of MOSCITO ( for theoretical discussion may be better to create new post ) :

1. Openings:

1D = both Ms
1H = unbal with H
1S = unbal with S
1NT = bal 11-14
2C = 6C or 5+C & 4D
2D = 6D or 5+D & 4C

Note: 1NT both majors 9-14 hcp is NOT WBF blue legal ( cant play it at any tournament ).

2. The responses to 1CL - like opening. The same continuations for simplification. With both majors need solution.

Note: I prefer the inverted and transferred responses, but please everybody to not forget the main purpose of this post!

3. Agree to most common and really symmetric structure with HiMiLo answers to relays.

Note: Perfect is enemy of good 8).

4. 4DI end signal, successfully used since it was invented by poles.

Note: I prefer to play without 4DI too, but please again everybody to not forget the main purpose of this post!

5. Sorry I dont know what style of slam convention is most common now, cant understand from your posts. But please choose 1 way for BBO MOSCITO STANDARD. AKQ slam points, CAB, denial cue bids scan, RKCB ... - what, when, why - quickly please!!!

Note: I prefer CAB + denial cue bids/RKCB like Luis, but it is not important - way you choose must be just most popular, not best!!!

Sorry I interfere in your discussion friends, but will be really nice in my opinion, if you succeed to agree to BBO MOSCITO STANDART.

Misho

[pbleighton]

Ron writes:
"Luis, Ben et al, what you need to ask is "What is the purpose of this exercise?" If it is to produce a bbo version of moscito that can be played on line etc, then I guess it does not really matter much what shape it takes as long as it is not too difficult to learn. If otoh the purpose is to produce a system that introduces people to relay bidding, then there is no doubt that this system should be based on the Symmetric structure. Why? The Symmetric engine is transportable and has been used as a basis of many systems, not least of which the original Symmetric relay. Having a grasp of Symmetric provides a player with transferable skills."

If Ron is correct about the transferability of Symmetric relays beyond Moscito (and from my very limited knowledge he is), I think that this is a powerful argument for using Symmetric relays. It will be more useful for those who learn it, and it will be more attractive to learn, both for relay newbies and for those who have played Symmetric relays in a non-Moscito system.

That said, however, what implications, if any, does changing the relay structure have for German Moscito? Are we opening up a can of worms?

Just asking.

Peter

[hrothgar]

My reason for interest in this project is the potential to promote MOSCITO as a bidding system.
I believe that the best way to do so is building sufficient critical mass at BBO that players can easily find partners. However, I also consider it important that we maintain compatibity with the more popular variants in use elsewhere. Ideally, new MOSCITO players who join BBO should find that the online version of the system matches what they are used to.

[luis]

I have no problem using the symmetric relays approach in BBO Moscito but we'll be losing some precision. We can work on the details and produce the material quickly.
About Slam points my experience is that AKQ slam points are not as good as AK controls followed by denial cuebidding.
I think that CAB + 4d terminator + Other bids = RKCB is a nice approach but it is not a must-have to start. The general CAB + denial cuebids + other bids= to play works almost as fine as the super-efficient approach. After playing Moscito for 2 years we never found the need for RKCB instead of denial cuebidding and we did find some hands where we just bid 4c or 4d since there were not enough controls for a minor suit game and 3nt wasn't an option (they run a suit). IMO it is better to have 4d (sometimes 4c too) as a signoff than to add the 4d terminator to be able to use RKCB. But it is just my opinion and I'll be happy to see this overruled by the majority :-)

Luis

[inquiry]

Quote

I have no problem using the symmetric relays approach in BBO Moscito but we'll be losing some precision. We can work on the details and produce the material quickly.
About Slam points my experience is that AKQ slam points are not as good as AK controls followed by denial cuebidding.
I think that CAB + 4d terminator + Other bids = RKCB is a nice approach but it is not a must-have to start. The general CAB + denial cuebids + other bids= to play works almost as fine as the super-efficient approach. After playing Moscito for 2 years we never found the need for RKCB instead of denial cuebidding and we did find some hands where we just bid 4c or 4d since there were not enough controls for a minor suit game and 3nt wasn't an option (they run a suit). IMO it is better to have 4d (sometimes 4c too) as a signoff than to add the 4d terminator to be able to use RKCB. But it is just my opinion and I'll be happy to see this overruled by the majority :-)

This probably can not be a majority rule kind of thing, since the majority (the 8 to 10 people who said they are interested) don't KNOW moscito and so can't make an informed decicision.

It seems that we have four active moscito players who are interested in helping out....
Luis (who proposed the teaching)
Richard (hrothgar) who has the best english notes
Ron (The_hog)
Rene (moscito-d)

Of these, we can be sure that Luis, Richard and Ron will be active participants as they are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th most active posters on this site. I think you GUYS should come up with the basic system.

Here is my suggestion as an interested student.
1) A document should be created and available on the web
2) A standard BBO convention card filled out and made available to the students
3) symmetric relays be used (seems to be agreed anyway)
4) 4D terminator be used (to remain consistent with other versions).
5) No forcing pass or opening relays be used
6) No 1C-1D positive being used, but rather 1D is negative.

With that starting point, if Luis and Richard could begin hammering out an agreement, I think we can quickly get a basic version. Perhaps after people have played the basic version, they will be willing to try more advanced versions...you guys didn't start out with what you play now for sure.

Ben

[luis]

I agree let's see how can we start this, Richard if you are reading would you like to write some basic notes ?

I think the base is:

1c: 15+ any with 1d as negative and 2c as balanced 9-11
1d: 10-14 no 4M
1h: 10-14 can be bal 4+h
1s: 10-14 no 4M UNBAL 4+s
1n: 10-14 bal with 4/5 spades
2c: 10-14 Both majors
2d+ whatever you want to play with your pd

Symmetric relays "on". I agree protability to other systems and standarization are important.

CAB + Denial cuebids + 4d terminator + RKCB for slam investigation

Non-relay responses based on Richard's notes

Now we should re-write the relay structure based on symmetric relays for the German-style openings...

[hrothgar]

I had to spent mos tof the weekend at work. I'm going to be in crunch mode for the next week, and won't have much time to think about things for a while.

Richard (who'se been at work since 5:45 this morning)

[luis]

Well I'll try to produce something for our fellow students/friends.
Can't promise anything but I will try....
Maybe the basic structure....

[hrothgar]

I will note the following:

I don't like the structure that Luis proposed.
After a 1NT opening, it is impossible to play in 2C.
I consider this a significant short coming.

Is there any reason not to use

1C = Strong
1D = Hearts
1H = Spades
1S = Diamonds
1N = Natural
2C = 6+ Clubs

This is simple, its logicial, its efficient, I already have all the notes written on the response structure.
Anyone who is going to find it too difficult to handle transfer openings won't be playing MOSCITO.

The only place where I see problems cropping up is the 6-4 major minor combos after 1S + 2C.

[hrothgar]

>5) No forcing pass or opening relays be used

MOSCITO can not be played without relays over the constructive openings.

[luis]

Maybe this structure can work:

1c 15+ any.
Responses as in German Moscito (2c=9-11 balanced)

1d 10-14 no (no 4M or three suited)
1s = positive INV+ relay
1N = Balanced
2c = relay
2d = minimum
2h = relay
2s = 4-4 in the minors
2n = 5332 with 5 d
3c = 5332 with 5c
3d = 3-3-4-3
3h = 3-3-3-4
2h = 4-4 in the minors (r=asks for doubleton)
2s = 5332 with 5 diamonds (r=asks for doubleton)
2n = 5332 with 5 clubs (4=asks for doubleton)
3c = 3-3-4-3
3d = 3-3-3-4
2c = Clubs one suiter or three suited with both minors
2d®
2h = Three suited
2s+ = S1
2d = One suited with diamonds
2h+ = S2 (both minors)

1h 10-14 4+h no 4s
1s = relay INV+
1n = balanced or three suiter with both majors
2c®
2d = minimum balanced
2h®
2s = h+d
2n = h+c
3c = 3-4-3-3
3d+ = 5332 show doubleton
2h = three suited
2s = h+d
2n = h+c
3c = 3-4-3-3
3d+ = 5332 show doubleton
2c = h+d
2d = h
2h+ = h+c (s2)

1s 10-14 4+s UNBAL
1n (relay INV+)
2c = s+d
2d = s
2h = S2 (s+c)

1n 10-14 balanced with 4/5 spades
2c (relay GF)
2d = minimum
2h®
2s = s+h
2n = s+d
3c = s+c
3d = 4-3-3-3
3h+ = 5332 show doubleton
2h = s+h
2s = s+d
2n = s+c
3c = 4-3-3-3
3d+ = 5332 show doubleton

2c (10-14 both majors)
2d (relay INV+)
2h+ = S2 (h+s)


Symmetric relays used:

S1:
2s = high shortage or 6322
2n = mid shortage
3c = Equal shortage (7222 or 10-1-1-1)
3d+ = S1 list

S1 list = 5332, 6331, 7321, 7330,....

S2:
2h = reverser
2s = equal length
2n = r
3c = high shortage
3d+ = low shortage S2 list with equal length
2n = high shortage
3c = equal shortage
3d+ = S2 list

S2 list: 5431, 6421, 6430, 6520, 7420.....
S2 list equal length: 5521, 5530, 6610......
S2 list equal shortage: 5422, 6511, 7411....

After shape is known:
3n = to play
1st non 3nt bid = CAB
4d = terminator
Others = RKCB setting trumps using rr suits in length order
After CAB denial cuebids are used

Feedback?

Luis

[inquiry]

Quote

>5) No forcing pass or opening relays be used

MOSCITO can not be played without relays over the constructive openings.

What I meant was an opening bid of 1D to show 4+ hearts, and 1H opening bid to show 4+Spades.... not relays in general.

Ben

[hrothgar]

I'm going to make one last post on this topic, though I wonder why I bother given that the students are such experts that they already know what MOSCITO should and should not include.

I've been teaching new partners to play MOSCITO for about 4 years now. I've always followed the same basic approach which has worked well.

Step one is constructive bidding over major suit opening.

Start with

1D = Hearts and
1H = Spades

and then explore all of the non-relay responses. These openings are the "core" of the system. Everything else is designed to facilitate this opening/response structure. The best way to find out if MOSCITO is "for you" is focus on this part of the system, because if you don't like this, you aren't going to want to "bother" with the rest.

To date, the main focus of discussion has been about what flavour of relays to use. To me, this simply illustrates that folks don't really know the basics about MOSCITO.

Step 2 is an introduction to symmetric relay using an extremely basic system over the strong club openings.

1C - 1D is artifical negative
All bids from 1H+ = Game forcing and symmetric.

Step 3 is Auction termination.
How do we explore for slam once we know shape

Step 4 is learning to apply this same symmetric structure over the 1D and 1H opening bids. Once again, a very basic symmetric structure is used.

Step 5: Handling interference during a relay auction.

Finally, add in the "extras", including the 1S/1N/2C openings and the preemptive structure. At this point in time, the system is "playable".

Normally, serious players want to switch over to the optimized version of the system within 2-3 months.

[luis]

Quote

I'm going to make one last post on this topic, though I wonder why I bother given that the students are such experts that they already know what MOSCITO should and should not include.

Why did you get sooooooo mad? Rich? Pls cool down, we are just trying to figure out an easy scheme, a compromise between an optimal version of moscito and an easy to learn version. I think that the first thing that we have to admit is that neither of us is the owner of the truth. I have my personal opinions about what is best for the system and what is best for newbies to the system but as I posted I can set aside many of my ideas if we agree on a different approach.
But we'll need a lot of patience and opinions should be allowed since we are all equals.

Besides that once a basic way to start learning the system is defined each student or partnership can change or evolve the areas of the system that he wants, IMO a system cannot make a parnership do better unless the system is adapted to the players styles, what they like to do, what they don't like, etc. That's why there're so many flavours and conventions of SAYC and that's why there're so many versions and approaches to Moscito. We are only trying to agree on a standarized version that will be used to LEARN moscito then is up to the players and their partners.

I can't see why we can't keep posting and discussing without fighting, we are all civilized bridge players I guess....

[trefl44]

For last 4 years I play Moscito at all times with my regular partner. We started from German, then we deviated to terrorizing Terrorist , touching slightly GIB. We studied Rene's notes, we ordered Nigel's book and we went through Richard's material.

With this package I can say one thing for sure in support to the latest hrothgar post. To be a successful Moscito bidder you have to have (in this order):
- logical, frequency based limited openings structure (1nt - 10 or 11 to 14 balanced),
- effective, frequency based developments after limited openings (1nt response to play, precise, nevertheless aggresive raises, 10-12 invitational and exploratory responses),
- intervention handling structure,
- symmetric, easy to remember pattern-type relays after 1c (German or Nigel is should be good enough).

I would gladly leave any other stuff for later.

Please count me and my partner as avid students of this very interesting Moscito course, BBO way.

-

[luis]

From trefl's post we can use "yet" another structure that can be as good as the one I proposed or better:

1c: 15+
1d: 10-14 no 4M
1h: 10-14 4+h
1s: 10-14 4+s
1n: 11-14 BAL no 5M
2c: 10-14 Majors

Then all the balanced hands are dumped into the 1NT opening, this ensures that the 1d opening is unbalanced and 1h/1s if balanced are 5332 with 5M. Parnterships will be allowed to use their favourite weak NT approacj (or strong NT approach) to deal with the 1NT opening and the relay structure over 1x will be simpler.
What do you think?

Luis

[inquiry]

Quote

I'm going to make one last post on this topic, though I wonder why I bother given that the students are such experts that they already know what MOSCITO should and should not include.

Richard, I am extremely disappointed you feel this way. But seeing that you do, I give up all efforts to pull you guys together to produce an "SAYC-like" (by that I mean a simple version with a little more meat than honeymoon moscito) that can suit you, Richard. .

As it was, my comments were primarily suggestions Here is my suggestion as an interested student." Since starting this thread, nothing much productive had happened (best was Rene participating and Luis's explanations of some bids I made). So I thought rather than waiting for a consensus that was certainly never coming as it was plodding along, I would offer the suggestion that you and LUIS decide on the basic system. To get the ball rolling I made suggestions I thought that had pretty much agreed upon (the type of relays, the terminator, etc), including 1H opening bids showing amazingly, hearts (see below). Even then, if you and Luis thought an opening 1D bid should show hearts, I could have lived with it. But I have no desire to participate when facing such an attitude you expressed in the quoted post.

So Richard, do as you wish. For me, I am no longer going to participate in the development of a basic moscito system.. Instead, I will choose a system designed by one player, maybe Luis's or maybe German, and use that and hope to find partners who will be willing to read the same notes I read. At least if I play Luis's system, he can provide online tutoring to me, and I will be willing to share what I learn with others here in the BBO forum. Those interested in what you play, Richard, can always read your notes, which are are clearly among the most extensive available anywhere.

Now for others reading this thread, I will point out what this "argument" (hostilities?) is over. There is simply no such thing as "moscito". All the players play it a little (or a lot different), and even those guys change their system, tweaking it here or there. Since the beginning of this thread, I have been advocating that the people who volunteer to teach this system narrow the variability, and produce one system so that all instructors and all teachers could play with each other using a standardized form of the bidding system. With this in mind, in the original days of the system, a first/second seat pass with Moscito was a "forcing pass" showing a good hand. That was fairly quickly dropped in favor of an opening bid of 1C as forcing. I didn’t think our system should include that, and no one seemed to complain about that.

Two other modern additions to Moscito are transfer OPENING bids. That is "modern" Moscito system often use an opening bid of 1D to promise a heart suit, an opening bid of 1H to promise a spade suit, and 1S to show clubs. This is the system that Richard plays…see http://web.mit.edu/~...www/MOSCITO.htm It is also part of the system played by others here on the BBO, like Ron (The hog), and yes. the inventor of moscito Paul Marston (who plays as pm).

Now there is no doubt a lot of merit in such transfer opening bids, and nothing horribly wrong with such opening bids other than they are often illegal, and certainly would spring unexpected auction problems on the unwary opponent who has never dealt with them. This is exactly the kind of disruptive bidding I thought it would be a good idea not to try to incorporate into BBO play as a general practice (see my comments at reply 36 of this thread). So I suggested that the opening bid transfers not be played. This set Richard off (oddly enough too, considering he agreed not to include them earlier i

However, most of the "basic" moscito systems do not use such transfer bids (the "pros" use them, but we are talking about bidding a system for the casual partnership here, not what the pro's play.. Instead all these basic moscito systems use an opening bid of 1H and 1S opening bids to show the bid suit instead of as an opening transfer:
Moscito Byte http://www.gibware.com/byte.html (BTW, this is one used with GIB)
Luis's system (see earlier in this thread).
German Moscito (http://www.trsteiner...cito2002_en.pdf
Honeymoon Moscito (www.abo.fi/~jboling/bridge/honeymoon.pdf)
In fact, if you check the bridgeguys webpage which list many of these systems, not a one of them list transfer opening bids (where an opening bid of 1D promises hearts, and an opening bid of 1H promises spades). http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/Mosc...citoSystem.html

And amazingly, despite his tirade about how I, a beginner, am trying to dictate (instead of suggest) what moscito should be, even Richard himself advocated this very same opening strategy earlier in this same thread (see REPLY #22, http://forums.bridgebase.com/in...sg4821#msg4821) where Richard said…

We're it me, I would suggest standardizing on the following, which I consider to be relatively simple, intuitive, and in tune with the commonly accepted system variants.

(1) Opening structure
1C = Strong
1D = No 4 card major
1H = 4+ Hearts, 0-3 Spades
1S = 4+ Spades, 0-3 Hearts
1N = Both majors

However, when I suggest the pretty much the same thing as Richard himself suggested, he tried to belittle my participation as "a beginner". I freely admit I know next to nothing about moscito, having only read about it and played against it. I furhter admit (and in fact acknowledged in the post Richard attacked) that we moscito beginners (including especially myself) should not try to dictate the requirements, which is why I offered my comments as a suggestion… heck, I even thought the opening 1BIDS were already agreed too (see repy 22 to this thread). But while I want to learn, long experience has taught me to avoid "teachers" with attitudes similar to one Richard expressed in the post I am reply too. So while I want to thank him for the offer of help, and while Richard may be a successful teacher of moscito to many players, I already know I can not learn from, nor even want to try to learn from, anyone with such an attitude towards beginners. So while I thought the needs of the many (the novice moscito students) would outweigh the needs of the few (the moscito pros), such that a basic system could be designed, I clearly was wrong. I thus fear that any attempt to reign in the free spirited moscitolites to agree on a basic, no-frills moscito as I had hoped is doomed to horrible failure as it is so very hard to overcome so devout feelings as shown in Richards latest reply. So again, count me out of the effort to build a basic BBO moscito.

So for me, I will ask an "instructor" to volunteer notes on the moscito he wants to teach. I will then play what the instructor wants to teach. This way, I can play with the instructor and any other students who he trains. The pool of players will not be as large, but overtime, the students should be able to work out the differences between at least some of the different systems and begin to play together. So, hopefully, master Luis, or master Ron, or Rene, or trefl44 will take me under their wing and teach me enough of their system so that I can a) learn to play it, and learn to play against it.

Ben