[moscito-d]

Luis,

recently I got "fan mail" from someone using my german material. A minute ago, he sent me the translation he made for his english-speaking partner. I didn't have the time to look into it, but put the pdf on my site for your reference:

http://www.trsteiner...cito2002_en.pdf

BTW we, too, dumped the impossible negative long time ago...

We didn't adopt the new response structure to 1C mainly because we were too lazy. Another point is, that this offers the player 4th in hand a chance for preemption in a situation where we didn't have the chance to show a suit or our hand-type.

I'd certainly love to participate in the creation of a BBO German Moscito standard, if I find the time...

René

[inquiry]

It is becoming increasing obvious that getting the moscito community to agree to a single version will be difficult... you guys are so darn independent and creative...

Having said that, that seems to be precisely that problem, everyone has their own pet flavor of moscito with their additions and deletions. I have read so many different versions of moscito notes that I am terrifically confused. But after reading the documents, I became convinced that the German Moscito was probably the best for beginners. I look forward to reading the updated from 2002 (I was reading the 1993 version).

I am no longer sure we will be able to agree on a standard BBO version, but maybe we could at least come to an agreement on a basic starting version for those members of the bbo community who want to give it a try on line.

Ben

[hrothgar]

Here are my own thoughts on the matter.

MOSCITO variants can be conceptualized as having four main pieces:

(1) The structure of limited opening bids + response schedules
(2) The response structure over the strong club opening
(3) Mechanisms to resolve shape
(4) Auction termination

German MOSCITO in general and the version used by Luis in particular represents a significant departure from more commonly played versions. I appreciate Luis's desire to play a variant that is legal for use in Argentina, however, I'm not sure whether this should be high on a list of selection criteria for an international playing community.

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

(2) Over 1C
1D = Negative
1H = Spades, unbalanced
1S = Hearts, unbalanced
1N = Balanced
2C = Dimaonds
2D = Clubs
2H+ = Both minors

(3) Standard symmetric relay, High Shortage First

(4) 4D = End Signal
Step = Asking for AKQ Slam points
Step +1... = RKCB for suits

[inquiry]

Hi Richard,

Your moscito "notes" might also be a good alternative to the German system. I really enjoyed reading them and in fact, have printed versions of the old version and the new one you updated a couple of months ago.

Your notes have some nice advantages for us beginners.... you have a lot of example auctions (something missing from, say, the German PDF...and one reason I tried to start this thread), your description of symmetric relays is outstanding. On the downside, 150+ pages is a lot, and you offer too many ALTERNATIVES ways. I am fairly simple minded... tell me how to bid, don't say I can use this relay structure or that one. Also, your dark blue background behind black letters in your tables is difficult to read. And don't get me started on using Frelling 2 bid structure. Also, your four different ways of hand evaluation and your statistical break out of hands seems unnecssary for people who just want to know more about moscito.

However, your notes have another big advantage for possible use as a starting point for a generalized BBO Moscito.... they are not only in english, they are in a word document that could be edited and posted somewhere on the web as the system evolves.

For others reading this thread, German Moscito circa 1993 is different from 2002 and is different from Richard's 2000 version and is different from his 2002/3 version. I was the person to suggest German moscito as the starting point because the notes in ENGLISH were short, easy to read, and made sense to me. Perhaps some of the other "moscito students" might want to compare the german moscito with yours and we can take a poll or something to see which might be the best starting point. There is a lot to be said for having a document we could edit to meet the "consensus" of this site (surely a popularity contest will not result in the best version possible, but any agreement is better than no agreement... lets just get something we can agree on so we can find on line partners to try this system with).

Ben

[hrothgar]

I had always hoped that my notes could be used for an education project.
I agree with Ben's comments that they are currently too complex. I'm working on a streamlined version of the notes that documents two verisons:

MOSCITO basic : the system current documented in the core of the document
MOSCITO advanced: the improved relay structures over 1C and 1D/1H

Sadly, between thesis and my new job, I'm a bit behind the 8 ball. However, assuming that people were willing to standardize on the version that i wrote up, I could try to create a document describing MOSCITO basic over the weekend. [All of the major changes are in the advanced part of the document]

[luis]

Quote

(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

(2) Over 1C
1D = Negative
1H = Spades, unbalanced
1S = Hearts, unbalanced
1N = Balanced
2C = Dimaonds
2D = Clubs
2H+ = Both minors

(3) Standard symmetric relay, High Shortage First

(4) 4D = End Signal
Step = Asking for AKQ Slam points
Step +1... = RKCB for suits

Let me disagree :-) Maybe you can convince me after all

Opening bids:
A 1s opening that can be balanced is bad because over the 1N relay you can't bid 1N and many times with a balanced hand the best spot to play is 1N, I strongly suggest to use 1s as 4+s UNBAL, 1N= balanced with 4/5 spades, 2c=Majors. This is what the 1993 and 2000 versions of German Moscito recommend and I can't find any reason to change it.

About responses to 1c:
I really prefer:
1h = 4+s
1s = 4+h no 4s
1n = 4+d no 4M
2c = 9-11 balanced no 5M
2d = One suited with 4+ clubs
This perfectly matches the S1, S2 schemes used by German Moscito.

About shape resolution:
I have no problem with high shortage first or last, it's the same to me. It is important to keep the relay structure easy to learn and based on rules not in memorization.

Slam tools:
If we use a CAB followed by denial cuebids then a 4d terminator is not needed (and adds extra complexity to the system) once shape is resolved a relay (not 3n) is a control asking bid while all the other bids are to-play. Then denial cuebids are used being all non-relay bids to play. This is simple, automatic to remember and works very well.

[moscito-d]

I completely agree with Louis. 1S with balanced hands is bad and so is a balanced 1N reply to the strong 1C. Both may be wrong-siding contracts and break the symmetry.

As far as hi/lo shortage first is concerned, there is a slight case for hi shortage first: When only finding the right game is your target, it is usally a choice between 3N and 4Maj. If relayee with a high shortage does not reveal his shape immediately, relayer can jump to 3N without telling the opps more than necessary, since 4Maj is no longer an option opposite the shortage. This applies whenever the residues are a minor and a major. To us, this slight advantage seemed not worth changing our habits and risking memory lapses, but if I were to learn Moscito from scratch now, I would tend to use high shortage first.

Our experience with AKQ slam points has not been too convincing, so we switched back to simple AK controls and denial cues. However, we added some slam oriented break-outs that allow opener to set a suit and ask for responders judgment. After that, we use RKCB with spiral scan and Exclusion KCB. This addition to our slam arsenal has been very valuable over the last years. On the other hand, this is certainly a little too complicated for beginners...

[hrothgar]

Nearly everyone these days uses 4D as end signal/terminator.
I really think that we should teach folks the methods that are in common use.

In a simialr fashion, 5332s hands with a major are currently treated as balanced rather than single suited.
R needs to be able to break relays and ask for stoppers for intelligent exploration of 3NT

Given that our goal is to define a system that is as simple as possible for use in teaching, I really think that all bids from 1H+ should be used to show game forcing hands. Anyone who is serious enough to want to memorize the 2H+ semi-positives responses is better served learning the 1D positive schema.

[the hog]

I hope you guys don't mind. I invited Rene to participate in this discussion.

I strongly suggest to use 1s as 4+s UNBAL, 1N= balanced with 4/5 spades, 2c=Majors. This is what the 1993 and 2000 versions of German Moscito recommend and I can't find any reason to change it.

Why have 2 bids to show S? That is inefficient and inelegant. You also create the major problem of totally wasting a bid that could be useful to show another holding. I don't understand the logic behind this at all.
I guess if you wanted to you could play 1S 2C as the relay, (up 2 steps), as some pairs did originally, so that you can retain a natural 1NT response, though 1S 1NT* has never worried us unduly when we played this version.

You could play if you wished
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

Another option is to play that 1H could be balanced, but that the 1NT opening shows a balanced 11-14 perhaps with 4S, but not 4H. So the 1S opening is always unbalanced.

Re the 1D opening showing a hand with no 4 card M. This means presumably that hands with 6+Ds or 6+C are both opened with 1D. This was tried here and discarded very swiftly as it places an enormous strain on that opening. Note that above options remove the pressure you have placed on the 1D opening.

As a corollory to this, to play 2C as constructive, 9-14, with both Majors is bad system design. With the Majors you are not that worried about being outbid, and therefore the auction should start lower, Similarly with the minors you ARE worried about being outbid and therefore you should make it harder for the opps by starting the auction at a higher level.

Slam tools:
If we use a CAB followed by denial cuebids then a 4d terminator is not needed (and adds extra complexity to the system) once shape is resolved a relay (not 3n) is a control asking bid while all the other bids are to-play. Then denial cuebids are used being all non-relay bids to play. This is simple, automatic to remember and works very well.

Disagree with not using the 4D terminator. You will find this is standard practice in virtually all modern relay systems. Contrary to Rene, we have had good experiences using a combination of AKQ points and RKCB. AK points alone do not a possible slam make; you need fillers. Also this method gives you heaps of flexibility and is very easy to remember.

Can live with your scheme of responses to 1C Luis, however again I do believe it is more efficient to include ALL 5332s in the flat hand response. I also see no need for 2 flat hand responses 9-11 & 12+. Why? Presumably so you can bid 3NT over a 2C bid without giving away information. But again there is a loss of efficiency and symmetry here.

The current S1 S2 structure as played by Rene is actually Bruce Neill's development of a relay structure that is different to symmetric. I have had a look at it and it is definitely not as easy as the original symmetric. Mind you it is easier than Marston's current structure which involved multi plexing some bids. If you are going to produce something easy, then there is no doubt that the original structure is the way to go. Bruce's structure includes the 4D terminator. He and Ron Klinger are playing something similar at the moment.

What this does is to include hands with 4333 in the single suited structure and 4432 shapes in the 2 suited structure. I personally feel that from a memory point of view showing flat hands with a 1NT bid is FAR more intuitive. The resolution in the original structure that specific shapes, 3D eg was always a 5332 s/suited or 5431 in 2 suited was a great boon to memory.

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. The S1 S2 schemes of Bruce Neill are quite clever, but they are definitely not Symmetric.

I agree with Richard that the semi positives in the German structure are nowhere near as efficient as the new Moscito structure, BUT I guess we are looking at something easy and intuitive.

Rene, I played 1C 1NT as the balanced response for years and found no problem with the possible wrong siding of contracts. Don't forget that as the Mos C is only 15+, the comparative strength of opener and resp is more likely to be similar than in say Precision. Also the 1C 1NT structure is great for opener being able to reverse the relay and limit his hand to a 15-18.
eg 1C 1N 2D = H + ?, 2H = S +a minor.

These work REALLY well.

One last thought - no one has mentioned using Roy Kerr's bidding tool to practice the system. Ben, Luis, Rene etc if you don't know about this tool have a look at:
http://www.bridge2symmetric.com

Ron

[Antoine Fourrière]

I know this thread is theoretically about German Moscito, but I feel that German Moscito is right about having an opening showing both majors, and that Aussie Moscito is right about right-siding the major-suit contacts and separating quickly the club one-suiters from the diamond hands (and very wrong in squandering the 2C opening into a six-card suit).

How about that combination?

1D hearts without spades
1H spades without hearts
1S diamonds without a major
1NT balanced, usually no major, may have long clubs
2C both majors (could be shaded if 5-5)
2D weak (maybe hearts or spades and a minor)
2H weak (maybe spades or hearts and a minor)
2S 9-14 clubs with 3 spades
2NT 7-11 clubs (0-2 spades if 9-11)
3C 11-14 clubs (0-2 spades, but 6322 often opens 1NT)

(Or simply 2S 9-14 with 6 clubs)

Comments?

[the hog]

Yes Antoine, you have not read the posts properly. Suggestions HAVE been made for a bid showing both Majors.
Also to have 3 bids showing Cs is a chronic waste of 2 bids. The other problem is that what you propose is not legal in the States.

[luis]

Quote

Another option is to play that 1H could be balanced, but that the 1NT opening shows a balanced 11-14 perhaps with 4S, but not 4H. So the 1S opening is always unbalanced.

1h can always be balanced because you have the 1h-1s;1n sequence to show a balanced minimum.
1NT always shows 4s or 5s, and can also have 4h if 4-4[32]. The 1s opening is always unbalanced and that's really good since you can preempt with a lot of hands once you know your pd has an unbalanced hand, it is safer and it is wiser to do it and makes life harder for opps.

About the relay structure, why do you say it is not symmetric? I think it is so easy to remember and to play that I have succeded teaching it to some players in about 2 hours.

I can't see why the 4d terminator can be useful if we use CAB+denial cuebids. It's not logical to put something into the system just because others use it :-) it has to have some purpose. If you add other options to the CAB + DC scheme then 4d is needed 'cos 4h and 4s would eventually have a different meaning but that is hardly needed and makes the system more complex.

About 5332 and 4333 hands in the S1 scheme it is good because when you deny a balanced hand those distributions are usually pulled from S1 and if you denied a balanced minimum then a 4333 or 5332 hand shows a good 13-14 hand, that is good knowledge for pd because he can know you have some fillers. Same when you respond to 1c, if you have 13+ it is better to describe since a game contract is almost always cold but with 9-11 a 2d response with balanced hands is perfect, opener frequently bids 3nt and the defenders know almost nothing. With a 5M on the other hand many times opener will prefer a 4M contract and that's why 5332 hands with 5M are not included in 1c-2c.

Please notice that I think Aussie Moscito is superior to German, I play both versions and prefer the transfer openings and I also like the 1c-1d GF scheme but the German version is as legal as precision and it is very easy to learn and then switching is easy that's why I think we should put some efficiency aside and build something very easy and very playable for newbies.

Luis

[DenisO]

As one of the newbies who would like to give Moscito a try I would second that opinion Luis. I was quite excited by Inquiry's original post hoping it would lead to a reasonably simple BBO Moscito - augmented hopefully by a good set of annotated bidding examples. I really think something as simple as possible is what is needed to get a feel for the system. It might not be the most efficient but that could come later.
For bidding examples it could be useful to use those in hrothgar's excellent set of notes, so that we newbies could more easily see the differences in treatment.

Denis

[pbleighton]

Luis writes:
"but the German version is as legal as precision"

Is German Moscito GCC Legal?

[luis]

In my country we use the WBF regulations (sortof orgnization is a disaster) so rewriting... we are supossedly using the WBF regulations.
Under WBF regulations German Moscito is a "BLUE" system because 1c is not dual and we don't have any "red system" treatment. So it is categorized in the same way as precision.
For the ACBL this should be a mid-chart system because of relays I think that no relay system can be GCC (absurd ins't it?)
Note that this version is just a 4 card majors and strong club system with relays used only with INV+ hands so I think it is perfectly legal under mid-chart conditions and in any WBF tournament where BLUE systems are allowed (meaning: all tournaments).
I only used the system in my country and here if precision can be played then this version of moscito can be played too.

Maybe René can have a mor authoritative opinion on this.
René?

[hrothgar]

I can't see why the 4d terminator can be useful if we use CAB+denial cuebids. It's not logical to put something into the system just because others use it :-) it has to have some purpose.

Standards are valuable in their own right. Interoperability is an end, in and of itself.

Our goal should be to foster the development of a MOSCITO community. This is best accomplished if we adopt the structures in common use. The vast majority of relay players have standardized on 4D end signal. Ergo, we should adopt the same.

In all seriousness Luis, the variant that you use is highly non-standard.
I believe that it would be a serious mistake to attempt base an education program arround it.

For what its worth, MOSCITO is definitively not legal at the GCC level.

Out of curiousity, is there a roguh estimate how many players are interested in learning the system?

[inquiry]

Ok... I am interested in learning the system, and if you read the learn moscito thread there were 8 people listed who were interested in learning moscito, and several knowledgable people willing to help them. I also know two players who have told me that IF we can agree on a standardized version that a fairly reasonable group of people agree to play, they would be willing to learn. So that brings the list to 10 students (of varying playing ability and experience).

A side issue, I will have to agree with Richard. The moscito should be a fairly simple version which has features common to other versions. Spiral scan is ok, and denial cue-bidding. But I agree the 4D terminator should be in there. The two bids should be left to the others to decide....but just as the new German moscito uses immediate leaps to show some positive hands with 4441 distribution in response to 1C, there is some attractiveness to opening bids that show these these hands.

As a friendly system for play in the BBO, I think we should adopt Luis's CONCEPT that the basic system should be designed to reach thin games and slams rather than to be disruptive. The reason for this is clear, while disruptive bidding has its place and is very important for an overall winning strategy, those who play a BBO moscito in the BBO will be facing players of all levels and abilities and who will be unfamiliar with moscito and will not have had time to develop adequate defenses to it. I think if the bidding was constructively designed so as not to try to take advantage of this lack of experience on their parts, but rather maximize your constructive bidding, there would be less hard feelings and not add to the rancor when people face unusual destructive weapons.

Ben

[hrothgar]

My own preference would be to use the following preemptive structure:

2D = Constructive preempt in either major
2H = 5 Hearts, weak
2S = 5 Spades, weak
2N = "Bad" 3 level preempt in either minor
3C = Constructive
3D = Constructive
3H = Weak
3S = Weak

This is both easy and pretty standard. [Plus it matches the version already in my notes]
However, I'm very flexible about the meanings for bids from 2NT up.

[inquiry]

After reading the English translation of new version of German moscito, I think it might be best to start with a truncated version of Richards notes and change "his" document to meet the needs of the group of players who are willing to learn a basic moscito.

The reason I suggest this is that the person who converted the german to english went wild with find in replace to save pages.... I can deal with "s" being suits, but 2sers for two suiters is a little disconcerting and some sentences are simple undecipherable. Examples are:
"After the 2serbids 1, 2 and 2, the responder can
ask for the 2nd s and lengths."

and

"Rule: After intervention, 1 or 1 from 1-opener is
always the STR [r], and there is no NEG
anymore, if the responder has limited himself
to 5HCP."

This doesn't mean that I don't like German Moscito, to the contrary in fact, but I don't think we should force this PDF document which I don't think we can edit onto students... Richard's can easily be modified to meet our needs I think, if he is willing to let us. We can incorporate the best of Luis's and German moscito idea's into it. But NO slam points.... :-)

Ben

[hrothgar]

But NO slam points.... :-)

Uh ...

Slam points are the most critical part of hand evaluation
They underlie the whole auction termination system
How do you propose playing without them?