[hrothgar]

Comment 1: I think that it is insane if your "two suited hand" can include the opponent's suit. (You've just deprived yourself of a cue bid and crippled partner's ability to infer a fit)
Comment 2: I think that it is dubious to treat a 7-4 hand as two suited.

If I were sitting North and heard the auction

1♥ - (2♦) I'd start with a fit showing jump to 3♥
I would prefer a slightly better heart suit and better texture in Spades, however, I think that it is the most descriptive call.

Its unclear what East is going to do...
Normally, I'd assume that partner is holding Diamonds and Clubs and make a club raise, however, I have no idea what's best against the 2♦ call that you describe.
I guess that East is forced to pass. (Note, the fact that you can overcall holding Spades means that East will be boxed out of raising on many cases when he can normally infer a fit)

South is now in a bit of a bind. The known double fit in Spades and Hearts is a big plus. However, he has a dead minimum opener.
I wouldn't fault either 3♠ or 4♠ and lean towards 4♠

[32519]

Having a defensive agreement against MOSCITO such as DOOM can have positive spin-offs. On the hand posted, and N/S having suffered a heavy penalty double, on a different yet similar hand may now err on the side of caution, stopping in a part-score when an easy game was on. The whole objective of my defence is to transfer pressure back onto the opponents. Your 2M bid is destructive, attempting to jam the auction. Now the pressure is on the opponents whether or not to balance.

Regarding some of your questions:
My 2♥ and 2♠ bids are descriptive and destructive at the same time. If your side is prepared to risk playing in 2M on a possible 4-3 fit and minimum values, what’s preventing me from taking a risk of playing on level 3 on a 5-2 or better holding in the other major. Balancing pushes the auction to level 3 anyway (over 2♠). So I want to make a very descriptive bid on my actual hand strength and holding. More often than not, my HCP will be concentrated in the 2 majors. Knowing that and the fact that I am sitting behind the player who opened one of the majors, increases my chances of any needed finesse in the suit.
The assumption that the hand posted contains 5/5 in the minors is wrong. Most likely it would then have been opened 2NT (unless really low on HCP). A really low holding in HCP then promises extreme distribution according to the definition. With extreme distribution, West would most likely have pulled 4♠ to 4NT indicating a willingness to sacrifice.

I take you calling my 2♦ bid insane as a compliment. All your questions indicate a growing interest in this defence. When you decide to adopt it, the least you can do is acknowledge where it originated. I think I will send a detailed write-up of DOOM to BridgeGuys for placing on their website. Then it is available for everyone, not just the members of the BBO Forums.

This is my last post on DOOM. I am the first to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed this polite exchange of ideas.

Over and out.

Andrew Lee (alias 32519)

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2012-September-01, 11:03, said:

If your side is prepared to risk playing in 2M on a possible 4-3 fit and minimum values, what’s preventing me from taking a risk of playing on level 3 on a 5-2 or better holding in the other major.

One more doubled undertrick?

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2012-August-31, 16:25, said:

Don’t you dare project your own ethical failures onto me. When I submit defenses to the ACBL, I try my best to provide effective methods that I myself would use at the table.

In my experience with the C&C Committee, I have found that they want to see short and simple defenses that employ commonly accepted approaches. They would not look favorably at a defense that used transfers in defense to an opening bid even if most (including committee members) would consider them theoretically better, for instance. They are looking for defenses that can be used without much thought or study.

[semeai]

TimG, on 2012-September-04, 06:11, said:

In my experience with the C&C Committee, I have found that they want to see short and simple defenses that employ commonly accepted approaches. They would not look favorably at a defense that used transfers in defense to an opening bid even if most (including committee members) would consider them theoretically better, for instance. They are looking for defenses that can be used without much thought or study.

This comment of Tim's makes sense.

I wonder, hrothgar, what would have happened if way back when you went in front of the C&C committee you had suggested the simple defense (over 1H showing spades) of double = like a 1-level heart overcall, 1S = like a takeout double of spades, higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening (or if you need to suggest a complete defense, just standard stuff).

Maybe you did as an alternative, but you argued forcefully enough (or they already believed strongly enough) that it wasn't optimal that the committee decided nothing good enough could be simple enough?

It seems that having people running around playing transfer openings (in midchart events) and most of their opponents playing this very simple defense would do no harm to the ACBL.

[hrothgar]

semeai, on 2012-September-04, 08:23, said:

This comment of Tim's makes sense.

I wonder, hrothgar, what would have happened if way back when you went in front of the C&C committee you had suggested the simple defense (over 1H showing spades) of double = like a 1-level heart overcall, 1S = like a takeout double of spades, higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening (or if you need to suggest a complete defense, just standard stuff).

Jack *****.

Members of the committee had no intention of ever sanctioning any defense to MOSCITO.
They were using the convention review process to have me jump through hoops, hoping that I'd get bored and go away...

[semeai]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-04, 09:00, said:

Jack *****.

Members of the committee had no intention of ever sanctioning any defense to MOSCITO.
They were using the convention review process to have me jump through hoops, hoping that I'd get bored and go away...

Okay, fair enough. The sentiment in the last sentence of my previous post made me want to believe there was a possibility of them being more reasonable.

Also, 5 letters? What word was that?!

[gwnn]

I suspect it's the British spelling (ending in a silent vowel) of another word.

[TimG]

semeai, on 2012-September-04, 08:23, said:

This comment of Tim's makes sense.

I wonder, hrothgar, what would have happened if way back when you went in front of the C&C committee you had suggested the simple defense (over 1H showing spades) of double = like a 1-level heart overcall, 1S = like a takeout double of spades, higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening (or if you need to suggest a complete defense, just standard stuff).

I did submit that defense to a 1H transfer opening. The 1H transfer opening was defined as a standard American 1S opening bid (5+ spades 11-21 HCP, etc.). It was approved, but not without questions and not without the stipulation that the 1H opening was forcing for a round. Nor was it enough to say "higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening", I had to describe what something like a 2D overcall would show. Though I did get away with "use methods as after a Standard American (1H)-2C" after stating that the 2C overcall was "natural and limited".

The description of the method and defense as approved ran over 2 pages in length and the defense was approved for events with rounds of 12+ boards only. It was considered "experimental".

My intention was to change the method slightly and resubmit the same defense for each modification. 1st would be standard with 4-card major suit openings instead of 5-card major suit openings. Next would be 5-card majors in a limited opening bid framework. Next 4-card majors in a limited opening bid framework. Etc. I did not make it a secret that this was my intention.

Shortly after the single transfer opening defense was approved, the C&C Committee put a moratorium on new methods. I followed the minutes of the C&C Committee for a couple of years after this. At some point, the C&C Committee removed some methods that had been approved and this was one of the casualties. I received no notice (and in fact the defense remained online for about a year after the Committee revoked the approval).

As Richard states, the Committee was never going to approve any defense to a MOSCITO style transfer opening (I was cc'ed on some e-mails that may have been intended for Committee members only that made their views clear). How close they were going to get was never ascertained because they dragged their feet and then instituted the moratorium. They effectively waited until I got bored.

I did once have a real desire to play a method where one of the minor suit openings showed exactly 4 spades, not quite a transfer opening, but something for which a defense to a transfer opening could have been easily adapted. Alas, I never put the method into play because of the resistance I knew I would receive from the C&C Committee.

[TimG]

TimG, on 2012-September-04, 10:34, said:

Alas, I never put the method into play because of the resistance I knew I would receive from the C&C Committee.

And, I feel like the Committee members would put up a small cheer if they heard this.

[semeai]

Thanks for the history.

TimG, on 2012-September-04, 10:34, said:

Shortly after the single transfer opening defense was approved, the C&C Committee put a moratorium on new methods. I followed the minutes of the C&C Committee for a couple of years after this. At some point, the C&C Committee removed some methods that had been approved and this was one of the casualties. I received no notice (and in fact the defense remained online for about a year after the Committee revoked the approval).

It's still there: ACBL Defense Database

TimG, on 2012-September-04, 10:34, said:

As Richard states, the Committee was never going to approve any defense to a MOSCITO style transfer opening (I was cc'ed on some e-mails that may have been intended for Committee members only that made their views clear). How close they were going to get was never ascertained because they dragged their feet and then instituted the moratorium. They effectively waited until I got bored.

I did once have a real desire to play a method where one of the minor suit openings showed exactly 4 spades, not quite a transfer opening, but something for which a defense to a transfer opening could have been easily adapted. Alas, I never put the method into play because of the resistance I knew I would receive from the C&C Committee.

TimG, on 2012-September-04, 10:35, said:

And, I feel like the Committee members would put up a small cheer if they heard this.

Very sad.

For this last method, though, isn't a 1m bid showing spades even GCC legal? The GCC allows "all-purpose" "artificial or natural" 1m bids. I suppose showing 4 spades exactly doesn't fit the description of "all purpose"?

[TimG]

semeai, on 2012-September-04, 10:50, said:

Thanks for the history.



It's still there: ACBL Defense Database

They did thank me for letting them know when I informed them it was still there in error. . .

Quote

Very sad.

For this last method, though, isn't a 1m bid showing spades even GCC legal? The GCC allows "all-purpose" "artificial or natural" 1m bids. I suppose showing 4 spades exactly doesn't fit the description of "all purpose"?

Yes, this 1m opening would be "single purpose" or some such rather than "all purpose". Even if technically a 1m opening could be used to show exactly four spades, it would be counter to the spirit or intention of the GCC. And, although I am not above breaking rules to make a point, it didn't seem worthwhile in this case.

[32519]

Those forum members looking for a more “in-your-face” defence to MOSCITO, need to read this thread as well. The thread that you are currently reading contains most of the crap. The other thread contains plenty of significant improvements to what you are currently reading. Two requests have been made to merge the 2 threads into 1.

[manudude03]

32519, on 2012-September-01, 07:20, said:

Who decided that my 2♦ bid needs to be 5/5? The definition says “a hand willing to bid to level 3.” What is stopping me from setting a trap for the MOSCITO players?

Back to BBO’s deal generator, this interesting hand was dealt:

West has a 7-card ♦ suit and openers ♠ suit covered from every conceivable angle. Out comes the 2♦ bid from West over Souths 1♥ bid, alerted as a 2-suited hand willing to compete to level 3. Whatever North does N/S are DOOM(ed). Count how many tricks you are down. West is going to X a possible 4♠ contract for penalties (pulling 4♠ to 4NT would show a hand looking to sacrifice). East sitting with a singleton ♠ may be the only person who knows what is going on.

---

I wonder if you even considered what would happen if West played a natural 2D overcall. I don't see N/S's bidding change at all, AND it is much easier to penalise.

Also, if it was just a 5/5 hand with a double fit, you could easily be defending 4S undoubled while cold for slam! (give West xx AQxxx AKxxx x, is that really a 4N bid if they launch it into 4S?

[glen]

manudude03, on 2012-September-05, 02:16, said:

I wonder if you even considered what would happen if West played a natural 2D overcall ...

This is terrible, using natural bidding over artificial openings in the non-natural forum. To answer your question, I don't think he considered it because there doesn't seem to be any reference to trying to bid the hands with, gasp, natural bidding.

Generally, the simple and effective approaches to defending Moscito were already given (natural bidding, including a bid of the major). However complex methods can be more effective, but they would involve trap passing with opener's major. The reason they are complex is that a whole slew of sequences need to be discussed, including 1red-pass-pass-? (what fourth hand needs to reopen with to protect against a trap pass), and 1red-pass-2M-pass-pass-X, and 1red-pass-1NT-pass-2m-X. An example would be:
pass: no good bid or 5 or longer in opener's major with values
X: balanced or quasi-balanced, opening bid values, only range for 1NT overcall if without a stopper
1M: like a takeout double of 1M, never balanced, can be light
rest: as over a natural 1M opening, mostly natural!

[mrdct]

hrothgar, on 2012-August-30, 07:37, said:

As a practical matter, if anyone ever offers you a handful of magic beans in exchange for a cow, don't do it!
(Its a scam)

Hang on, in the only documented instance where that transaction took place it actually worked out very well for the recipient of the magic beans when he scored a hen that lays golden eggs!