[foobar]

As pilun noted, it's a pity that this sub-forum has gone dormant, and this is my attempt to try and revive it.

IMO, SCAMP is one of the most interesting recent systems and improves on both TOSR and Moscito.

The outline of the structure is as follows:

1♣: 16+
1♦: 4+♠, denies ♥
1♥: 4+♥, denies ♠
1♠: Both majors
1N: 12-15, no 4CM
2♣: 5+♣, no major, maybe 4♦
2♦: 5+♦, no major, maybe 4♣
2M: Per preference
2N: 10-15, 5-5 minors

The 1♦ as ♠ allows 1♥ as a weak relay, and the 1♥ opening can be passed, unlike a 1♦ opening showing ♥. The 1N denying a 4CM is idiosyncratic, but it can be adjusted per taste. The 2m openings allow full fidelity relays.

[awm]

This does have a lot of advantages over TOSR/Moscito and seems pretty good if you like the 4cM/canape approach. The one negative would seem to be the 2NT opening, which is pretty bad in constructive auctions (it might have some preemptive advantages but with the 10-15 range probably not so much).

Of course, you could move the 2NT hands into the 2♣ opening without overloading it for relays.

[foobar]

awm, on 2021-December-24, 04:13, said:

This does have a lot of advantages over TOSR/Moscito and seems pretty good if you like the 4cM/canape approach. The one negative would seem to be the 2NT opening, which is pretty bad in constructive auctions (it might have some preemptive advantages but with the 10-15 range probably not so much).

Of course, you could move the 2NT hands into the 2♣ opening without overloading it for relays.

pilun@ is on this forum, so perhaps he can comment on the above?

Also, since we have TOSR and Moscito player like Dan (djneill) and Richard (hrothgar), perhaps they can comment as well?

[Bad_Wolf]

This has been played in NZ in the past. Isn't Moscito Byte similar?

[foobar]

Bad_Wolf, on 2021-December-24, 14:53, said:

This has been played in NZ in the past. Isn't Moscito Byte similar?

If this is Moscito Byte, it looks very similar to mainstream Moscito: https://www.bridgeha...yte_System.htm.

What NZ players played this system?

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I am not particularly enamoured of this structure

Let's start with the high level bids

2N as 5-5 in the minors is highly problematic because you really want to be able to bid both 3♣ and 3♦ to play. You're going to need to weld on some completely different response structure.

Losing a 2♦ preempt (however it gets used is also really painful)

If you are going to do this, I'd have 2♣ show either 6+ Clubs single suited OR 5+ Clubs and 4+ Diamonds (shove the 5-5 patterns into 2♣ as well)

In all honesty, you might be better off playing something like the following

3♦ = single suited with Diamonds
3♣ = single suited with Clubs
2N = bad opening with 6+ cards in a minor
2 Level openings = Preempts of some kind\
1N = Minors - either balanced (4-4 in the minors or a 5332) OR two suited with the minors

[hrothgar]

Now let's move to the low level bids

My concern is the you have WAY too few hands being shown by your 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ openings.
And you're natural 1NT is going to be quite rare as well.

This is what is so cramping your high level bids.

I suspect that you'd be a lot better off using 1♦ to show hands with no 4 card major, 1♥ and 1♠ as showing a 4 card suit (and denying the other major) and 2♣ as showing both majors.

One thing that I did with my MOSCITO variant is differentiate between the set of balanced hands that open 1N and the set of hands that start by showing a major.

If you have a balanced 11+ - 12 with 4+ Spades, you start by showing the Spade suit
If you have a balanced 11+ - 12 with 4+ Hearts, you start by showing the Heart suit

In turn, this means that if you have a Stayman type sequence after a 1N opening, but you don't need a range invite.
You can comfortably place the contract.

There are also some negative inferences available during certain relay sequences.

[awm]

Aside from regulatory issues and the question of whether you like four-card majors in competition, I think there are a couple serious problems with the Moscito opening structure. These are:

1. You can't get out in 1M after either major-suit oriented opening because they are transfers. Thus you have to either pass and play in what could be a ridiculous spot, or treat them as forcing one round.
2. In standard bidding, the spade-showing opening actually contains more hand types than the heart-showing opening (because 5♠-5♥ opens 1♠). This helps a lot in non-relay sequences, but creates some awkwardness in relay systems where you have more steps over the opening with fewer possible patterns. Moscito retains this problem by simply moving both openings down one notch.

This is why I like the idea of 1♦=spades and 1♥=hearts. You can pass the heart-showing opening, and find a way to get out in 1♠ over the spade-showing opening (I'm partial to 1♥=relay and 1♠=less than GF, opener bids on with a canape hand or if very maximum). Using 1♥ as the relay over 1♦ gives you an extra step so you can keep the both majors equal length hands in the spade-showing opening.

It's not clear you really need the 1♠=both majors opening since you can put such hands into 1♦; if you use 1♠=5+♦ no major, then you can fold the 2♦/2NT openings into there and free up both of those for preempts, and this might be a bit better.

However, the original structure does have the advantage of possibly bypassing regulatory constraints (since the only "transfer" opening is 1♦).

[foobar]

awm, on 2021-December-26, 08:47, said:

Aside from regulatory issues and the question of whether you like four-card majors in competition, I think there are a couple serious problems with the Moscito opening structure. These are:

1. You can't get out in 1M after either major-suit oriented opening because they are transfers. Thus you have to either pass and play in what could be a ridiculous spot, or treat them as forcing one round.
2. In standard bidding, the spade-showing opening actually contains more hand types than the heart-showing opening (because 5♠-5♥ opens 1♠). This helps a lot in non-relay sequences, but creates some awkwardness in relay systems where you have more steps over the opening with fewer possible patterns. Moscito retains this problem by simply moving both openings down one notch.

This is why I like the idea of 1♦=spades and 1♥=hearts. You can pass the heart-showing opening, and find a way to get out in 1♠ over the spade-showing opening (I'm partial to 1♥=relay and 1♠=less than GF, opener bids on with a canape hand or if very maximum). Using 1♥ as the relay over 1♦ gives you an extra step so you can keep the both majors equal length hands in the spade-showing opening.

It's not clear you really need the 1♠=both majors opening since you can put such hands into 1♦; if you use 1♠=5+♦ no major, then you can fold the 2♦/2NT openings into there and free up both of those for preempts, and this might be a bit better.

However, the original structure does have the advantage of possibly bypassing regulatory constraints (since the only "transfer" opening is 1♦).

Nick (the author of SCAMP) said that he'll chime on the thread later, but the desire to bypass regulatory constraints likely factored into the system design. Dan Neill noted that one of the weakness of TOSR / Moscito is that all hands with ♥ are processed through 1♦, and having a system that spreads the load is desirable.

[pilun]

awm, on 2021-December-24, 04:13, said:

This does have a lot of advantages over TOSR/Moscito and seems pretty good if you like the 4cM/canape approach. The one negative would seem to be the 2NT opening, which is pretty bad in constructive auctions (it might have some preemptive advantages but with the 10-15 range probably not so much).

Of course, you could move the 2NT hands into the 2♣ opening without overloading it for relays.

The aim is simplicity and symmetry, sometimes at the expense of accuracy and effectiveness. Relay is a hard sell, weighed down by preconceptions about complexity and geekiness. The book aimed to be accessible to keen, youngish players with no background in relay or maths. Masterpoint Press has sold a few hundred, a decent start.

So 2♣ is 6+♣ or 5-4 minors, no major, 10-14. The gain is symmetry, since the 1-suiters and 2-suiters are both square. Adding 5-5s would make the 2-suiters +1. The transfer crowd have 2♣ as 6+ 1-suiters, since both minors open 1♠ (diamonds). I'm not so keen. Note that a fair chunk of 5-4 minor hands will be opened 1NT anyway. Also, treating 4-6 minors as a 1♠ (diamonds) opening feels strange.

2NT is 10-14, good suits, otherwise distort to 2♣/♦. Not so great but honestly better than encouraging people who commit 2NT on random 6-counts.

Scamp e-book

[pilun]

awm, on 2021-December-26, 08:47, said:

Aside from regulatory issues and the question of whether you like four-card majors in competition, I think there are a couple serious problems with the Moscito opening structure. These are:

1. You can't get out in 1M after either major-suit oriented opening because they are transfers. Thus you have to either pass and play in what could be a ridiculous spot, or treat them as forcing one round.
2. In standard bidding, the spade-showing opening actually contains more hand types than the heart-showing opening (because 5♠-5♥ opens 1♠). This helps a lot in non-relay sequences, but creates some awkwardness in relay systems where you have more steps over the opening with fewer possible patterns. Moscito retains this problem by simply moving both openings down one notch.

This is why I like the idea of 1♦=spades and 1♥=hearts. You can pass the heart-showing opening, and find a way to get out in 1♠ over the spade-showing opening (I'm partial to 1♥=relay and 1♠=less than GF, opener bids on with a canape hand or if very maximum). Using 1♥ as the relay over 1♦ gives you an extra step so you can keep the both majors equal length hands in the spade-showing opening.

It's not clear you really need the 1♠=both majors opening since you can put such hands into 1♦; if you use 1♠=5+♦ no major, then you can fold the 2♦/2NT openings into there and free up both of those for preempts, and this might be a bit better.

However, the original structure does have the advantage of possibly bypassing regulatory constraints (since the only "transfer" opening is 1♦).

1980s Moscito had a bid for both majors, since discarded. We like the denied major principle, which affects every one of our limit openings. To move both majors into 1♦ &/or 1♥ would be a big change. Do they all go into 1♦ (spades)? Even with 4-6? Or do you pollute both those openings?

Our responders gain a lot from the knowledge. No need to search for a non-existent fit; a negative double will tend to show five OM; responder can play around by bidding a major in which both of us are short; opener can use bids in the denied major in various ways; etc.

Some transferrers have gone further, allowing 1NT to contain a major. A retrograde step IMO.

Yes, there are also regulatory concerns. In England, major openings have to show four plus cards in the bid suit.

[pilun]

hrothgar, on 2021-December-26, 05:37, said:

Now let's move to the low level bids

My concern is the you have WAY too few hands being shown by your 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ openings.
And you're natural 1NT is going to be quite rare as well.

This is what is so cramping your high level bids.

I suspect that you'd be a lot better off using 1♦ to show hands with no 4 card major, 1♥ and 1♠ as showing a 4 card suit (and denying the other major) and 2♣ as showing both majors.

One thing that I did with my MOSCITO variant is differentiate between the set of balanced hands that open 1N and the set of hands that start by showing a major.

If you have a balanced 11+ - 12 with 4+ Spades, you start by showing the Spade suit
If you have a balanced 11+ - 12 with 4+ Hearts, you start by showing the Heart suit

In turn, this means that if you have a Stayman type sequence after a 1N opening, but you don't need a range invite.
You can comfortably place the contract.

There are also some negative inferences available during certain relay sequences.

Richard,

The aim was simplicity and symmetry. That meant being able to say things like
"Whatever the opening, if you hold a 5431, you will be bidding 3♦ at some stage to show it"
"With a 2-suiter, bidding 2♥ will say that the second suit is longer." Etc

A focus on majors means having six shape-showing openings, dictated by shown and denied majors.
So 1NT denies a major, seems a good place to start. Doh! 2♣ likewise. (Not balanced, else 1NT)

The old style of 1♥ = "hearts, not spades" and 1♠ = "spades, not hearts" is not good, relay-wise.
"Over 1♠, the structure is UP ONE, or UP TWO if you sensibly choose 2♣ as the relay." No thanks!

There is a real cost in throwing long spades in with a natural 1♥ opening, even though doing so frees up a slot elsewhere. Much better is for both major openings to deny the other, gaining big benefits from the denied major principle.

How does this fit together? To retain symmetry, the shape-ask should be the same bid, which clearly has to be 1♠, hence the chosen opening structure. Not as good would be 1♦ = hearts, 1♥ = spades, 1♠ = both. As others have observed, that makes it difficult to get out at the 1-level and strains the raise of opener's major &/or the 1NT response.

1♠ with majors is fine and symmetric. Opening 2♣ with (4-4) majors seems daft.

Nor do we like the idea of excluding some balanced hands from (overloaded?) major openings, dumping them on 1NT. That gives up the gain of the denied major. Responder would not be able to jump to 3NT on Stayman hand, nor show minors with 4-4, nor diagnose the opponents' major fit, etc.

Our method has issues. The structure over 2♦ is ONE UP. (Plus responder with long hearts has a problem) Painful but can't be helped. Better to be able to open 1♠ to show diamonds but we found a better use for that slot. (Okay, 1♦ = "spades, could have both" is pretty good, frees 1♠ to show diamonds)

There is a choice with 5+4 minors. Either 1NT or the longer minor, depending on strength and texture. Over 1NT, relay can still unravel a shape like 1-3-5-4. The strong club is a bit different since (as we know) the structure has to be compressed to retain symmetry with the limit openings. Again, can't be helped. At least we can keep 1♣ as 16+ in all seats.

[foobar]

pilun, on 2021-December-27, 05:58, said:

Nor do we like the idea of excluding some balanced hands from (overloaded?) major openings, dumping them on 1NT. That gives up the gain of the denied major. Responder would not be able to jump to 3NT on Stayman hand, nor show minors with 4-4, nor diagnose the opponents' major fit, etc.

Nick,

Thanks for the insights. Regarding the denied major gain, doesn't it apply to the 1♦/1♥ openings regardless of whether the hand is balanced (in contrast to Moscito/TOSR 1♦/1♥ openings)? Regarding the balanced hands in 1M, it seems like there's a trade-off between the Stayman auction you mentioned above and immediately clarifying the hand type (balanced vs. unbalanced).

[pilun]

foobar, on 2021-December-27, 16:35, said:

Nick,

Thanks for the insights. Regarding the denied major gain, doesn't it apply to the 1♦/1♥ openings regardless of whether the hand is balanced (in contrast to Moscito/TOSR 1♦/1♥ openings)? Regarding the balanced hands in 1M, it seems like there's a trade-off between the Stayman auction you mentioned above and immediately clarifying the hand type (balanced vs. unbalanced).

Yes, the Scamp majors are not overloaded, doing fine.
The structure of methods like Richard's is quite different, since their 1♦/♥/NT openings (even 1♠/2♣?) no longer deny anything. It's not easy to work out whether this is a good or bad thing. The denied major principle offers a point of difference and as such, we pump it into a virtue.

Strong club systems are usually light opening but symmetric relay can negate that advantage. For instance:

♠63 ♥AT43 ♦KJ72 ♣QJ8

is an easy Precision 1♦ opening, because 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT is pleasant, showing 11-13. Responder will pass that with a flat 11-count.

A Scamp 1♥ opening is less appealing. 1♥ - 1♠(relay) - 2♣ (bal, still 11-15) is not great.
We might choose not to open, so 1♥ is really 12-15 if balanced.
It's different with four spades (1♦ opening) because responder has 1♥ available as a weakish "relay".

[nullve]

I enjoy your book!

Idea:

1♣ = Scamp 1♣ or Scamp 1♠

1♣-1♦; 1♠ = Scamp 1♠ possibly with a wider range (say "11-18" instead of "11-15")

1♣-1♦; 2♣+ = Asptro or better NT defence, possibly excluding major 2-suiters

1♣-1♥; 1♠-1N/2♦+ = Scamp 1♣-1N/2♦+

1♣-1♥; 1N+: takes care of all Scamp 1♠ hands (e.g. by simply letting 1♣-1♥; 1N = original 90s Moscito 1N)

1♣-2♦ = 8+, either S+H reverser or 5+S5+H (can afford to use 2♥ as a GF relay over this because of the guaranteed 9c+ H fit opposite the Scamp 1♠ type)

1♣-2♥ = 8+, S+H anti-reverser (can afford to use 2♠ as a GF relay over this because of the guaranteed 9c+ S fit opposite the Scamp 1♠ type)

1♣-2♠+ = Scamp 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♠+ (9+c S fit guaranteed)

1♠ = Scamp 2♣, Scamp 2♦ or Scamp 2N

2♣+ = weak preempts

[nullve]

pilun, on 2021-December-27, 05:58, said:

Richard,

The aim was simplicity and symmetry. That meant being able to say things like
"Whatever the opening, if you hold a 5431, you will be bidding 3♦ at some stage to show it"
"With a 2-suiter, bidding 2♥ will say that the second suit is longer." Etc

A focus on majors means having six shape-showing openings, dictated by shown and denied majors.
So 1NT denies a major, seems a good place to start. Doh! 2♣ likewise. (Not balanced, else 1NT)

The old style of 1♥ = "hearts, not spades" and 1♠ = "spades, not hearts" is not good, relay-wise.
"Over 1♠, the structure is UP ONE, or UP TWO if you sensibly choose 2♣ as the relay." No thanks!

There is a real cost in throwing long spades in with a natural 1♥ opening, even though doing so frees up a slot elsewhere. Much better is for both major openings to deny the other, gaining big benefits from the denied major principle.

How does this fit together? To retain symmetry, the shape-ask should be the same bid, which clearly has to be 1♠, hence the chosen opening structure. Not as good would be 1♦ = hearts, 1♥ = spades, 1♠ = both. As others have observed, that makes it difficult to get out at the 1-level and strains the raise of opener's major &/or the 1NT response.

1♠ with majors is fine and symmetric. Opening 2♣ with (4-4) majors seems daft.

Nor do we like the idea of excluding some balanced hands from (overloaded?) major openings, dumping them on 1NT. That gives up the gain of the denied major. Responder would not be able to jump to 3NT on Stayman hand, nor show minors with 4-4, nor diagnose the opponents' major fit, etc.

Our method has issues. The structure over 2♦ is ONE UP. (Plus responder with long hearts has a problem) Painful but can't be helped. Better to be able to open 1♠ to show diamonds but we found a better use for that slot. (Okay, 1♦ = "spades, could have both" is pretty good, frees 1♠ to show diamonds)

There is a choice with 5+4 minors. Either 1NT or the longer minor, depending on strength and texture. Over 1NT, relay can still unravel a shape like 1-3-5-4. The strong club is a bit different since (as we know) the structure has to be compressed to retain symmetry with the limit openings. Again, can't be helped. At least we can keep 1♣ as 16+ in all seats.

Why do you switch to a Precision-like opening structure in 3rd/4th seat?

[nullve]

In particular, why is it ok that 1N in 3rd/4th includes hands with a major?

A Scamp-like system with 14-16 NT also in 1st/2nd seat:

1st/2nd seat:

P: includes 11-13 BAL
1♣ = Scamp 1♠ except unBAL OR Scamp 1♣ except 17+ if BAL
1♦ = Scamp 2♣, 2♦ or 2N
1♥ = Scamp 1♥ except unBAL*
1♠ = Scamp 1♦ except unBAL*
1N = 14-16 BAL
2♣+ = weak preempts

P-?:

1♣ = 8-10 BAL(ish) OR Scamp 1♣(3rd/4th)
...1♦+ = e.g. as in this post, but likely simplified depending on which hand types have been denied by the initial P
1♦+ = Scamp(3rd/4th) (or Precision)

1♣-?:

E.g. as in post #15 above, which is something like

Spoiler

1♦ = negative (as in Scamp)
...1♥ = Scamp except 20+ if BAL
...1♠ = Scamp 1♠ (opening) except always unBAL and possibly with wider a range (like "10-18")
...1N = 17-19 (instead of 16-18) BALish
...2♣+ = e.g. like a NT defence with "16-18" but possibly excluding major 2-suiters
1♥
...1♠ = GF relay
......1N/2♦+ = Scamp 1♣-1N/2♦+
......2♣ = Scamp
...1N+: includes all unBAL Scamp 1♠ type hands
1♠ = Scamp
1N/2♦+ = Scamp 1♣-1♥; 1N/2♦+ except that S+D reversers and S+D anti-reversers swap places
2♣ = Scamp

It might help, especially over 1♣-1♥, that Opener's Scamp 1♠ type hands are always unBAL, though.

1♥-?:

(...)
1♠ = < GF relay
...E.g.:
...1N = Scamp 1♥-1♠; P except unBAL
...2♣+ = Scamp 1♥-1N; 2♣+ (except always unBAL)
1N = GF relay**
(...)


1♠-?:

(...)
1N = GF relay**
2♣ = INV relay
...2♦ = 4 S
...2♥ = Muiderberg
...2♠ = MIN, 6+ S
...2N+ = MAX
2♦ = < INV, P/C
...P = 5+ D
...2♥ = Muiderberg
...2♠ = 6+ S
...2N = 4144
...3♣ = 5+ C
(...)


1M-1N; ?:

2♣ = M+D 2-suiter
2♦ = M+C non-reverser
2♥ = M+C reverser
2♠ = M+C+D 3-suiter
2N+ = M 1-suiter (6+ M)

*

pilun, on 2021-December-27, 05:58, said:

The old style of 1♥ = "hearts, not spades" and 1♠ = "spades, not hearts" is not good, relay-wise.
"Over 1♠, the structure is UP ONE, or UP TWO if you sensibly choose 2♣ as the relay."

But hopefully it's ok to use 1N as the GF relay after all BAL hands are removed from 1♠. The resulting structure is +0.

**

pilun, on 2021-December-27, 05:58, said:

To retain symmetry, the shape-ask should be the same bid

But now 1N (over 1♥/1♠) instead of 1♠ (over 1♦/1♥).

This post has been edited by nullve: 2022-March-15, 05:42

[helene_t]

Do you open at the one-level with 4M6m hands?

Marston said he originally did so but found out that it often led to 4-3 fits in a major where a better minor suit contract is available, so he changed it.

Maybe you have that problem a bit less, at least over the 1♦ opening where you may use the weak relay on some hands with which Moscito would bid 2♠, but I think I would still raise with 3-card support on some hands, especially in contested auctions.

[nullve]

helene_t, on 2022-March-15, 13:06, said:

Do you open at the one-level with 4M6m hands?

https://www.bridgeba...limit-openings/

[pilun]

nullve, on 2022-March-14, 17:25, said:

Why do you switch to a Precision-like opening structure in 3rd/4th seat?

Relay is a method with gains and losses. With our style, one loss is the failure to narrow describer's range early on. 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ as any balanced is an example.

In third seat, the loss of shape-showing can be replaced by limits to strength. So the common 1♦/1♥ - 1♥/1♠ - 1NT becomes 11-13, a useful range. That creates a problem with something like:

♠Ax ♥KJxxx ♦Kxx ♣Axx

1♥ - 1♠/NT - 2NT is a poor sequence, "solved" by opening a 14-16 notrump instead.