Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Granville
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 46 47 48 49
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Neither would I.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With a strong 6-4 minor suit hand he can start with a forcing 2 and see what develops.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Where are your winners?
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
With all of my 2/1 (and MOSSO) partners 3NT over 3 would be non-serious, so 4 is a serious slam try. Over this opener absolutely must show a diamond control if he has one. Responder can always bid 4 over 4 if his ambitions are limited.
May 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm surprised by the strong support for 3. Shouldn't this suggest something like xx AQTxx Kxx xxx ?
May 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I remember the problem well.
May 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Good luck!
May 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with you on both counts.

To a first level of approximation, ACBL Basic chart corresponds to EBU level 2 and ACBL Basic+ chart corresponds to the superseded EBU level 3 (although this might still be used in some clubs).

MOSSO isn't compliant with the old EBU level 3 and is nowhere near compliant with EBU level 2.

I have no objection to this: inexperienced players shouldn't be forced to play against bidding systems such as MOSSO. For me it's sufficient that MOSSO is allowed in “most” events.
May 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At present (as far as I can gather) a MOSSO 1 opening in ACBL land shouldn't be announced, but it should be alerted and also pre-alerted. With most 9 point hands being eligible for a 1 opening it's regarded (in the alert chart) as a “very light opening”.

This approach seems to be rather inconsistent with the new convention charts, but is presumably explained by the fact that only those were updated last year. Do the ACBL plan to update the alert charts this year?

I'm not planning to post a new summary of MOSSO on BW because my 2016 summary https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/introduction-to-mosso-mosca-with-standard-spade-openings/ is still largely valid. I have, however, identified six minor changes that relate to this cut-down version of the system (Meno MOSSO):

(1) A 1 opening is now 9-16, rather than 10-16.

(2) The 2m responses to 1 are now regarded as 12+ (although responder with a poor 12 points might still decide not to force to game).

(3) The 3m (and 3M) responses to 1 now show specific hands with a 7+ card suit.

(4) 1-1-2 is available for some hands with 6+ spades.

(5) 1-1NT-2 is now GF without 5 spades. Responder treats the 2 rebid as invitational.

(6) 1-1-2 is now used as a distributional GF (7+ hearts or an outside 5+ card suit), with 1-1-2NT denying such hands.

The standard version of MOSSO defines many more later bids and the expanded version (piu MOSSO) includes some further treatments that could be adopted by regular partnerships.
May 8
Richard Granville edited this comment May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There's no issue of legality because the ACBL Open regulations only relate to opening bids. All systems of responses and rebids are allowed.

In many jurisdictions the 3+ card 1M rebids after 1-1 need to be alerted https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/alert-the-polish-club-sequence-1c-1d-1h/.
May 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've had a closer look at the new regulations and I conclude that the MOSSO system is fully compliant with ACBL Open level. It's a great help that there are no longer any restrictions on responses and rebids.

The opening 2-bids are all natural and limited to at most a 5 point range.

The 1 opening could show clubs, which is OK. The 1 and 1 openings are natural and there's no problem about them being forcing.

The 1 opening is now rule of 18, but this still provides a point leeway in connection with near-average strength.

In fact there's probably a minor problem with the 1 opening at EBU level 4 because this demands at least 8 points and rule of 18. So a hand with 7 points, 6 spades and an outside 5 card suit could be opened 1 under ACBL rules but not under EBU rules. In practice this isn't a major issue and I'm perfectly happy to pass such hands (or open them 2).
May 7
Richard Granville edited this comment May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was relevant when Ian wrote the comment in 2016.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having looked at the rules again I've come to the same conclusion, although I'll go into more detail in response to Barry Plotkin's more recent query.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only the third of these features applies to MOSSO (not for spades) and I've checked that there's no ACBL restriction on this at Open level.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many thanks to Barry for posting the article and to the people posting comments.

As far as I can gather, the whole of MOSSO has been legal at ACBL Open level since the regulations were changed on November 22, 2018. Is http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/181AttachmentD.pdf the right source for this? If so I'll perform a more detailed analysis and summarize it on BW.

I did know that the Kaplan Interchange (an essential part of MOSSO) wasn't allowed under the old GCC rules, but these are now superseded.

For those playing bridge in England (and probably the rest of the UK) MOSSO satisfies the requirements of EBU level 4 and is therefore allowed in most tournaments and club events.
May 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm assuming that Jacoby 2NT is part of Standard American.
May 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Polish Club and MOSSO both use a 15-17 1NT opening but have a simple way to resolve the 2NT range issue, namely to require 7+ points for a 1M response to 1. Then a 2NT rebid can be played as GF. In MOSSO the range is 18-20 or 23+. In at least one variant of Polish Club the range is 18+ because a 2NT opening is conventional and weak.
April 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me the 1NT response to 1 has always guaranteed 5+ spades. I realise that some other people allow it on some hands with only 4 spades.
April 27
Richard Granville edited this comment April 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree with both of you. It didn't take me long to recognize this as a form of strip squeeze and this would probably have helped me to play the hand more quickly.

But if it's a more unusual type of squeeze (or other endplay) then trying to remember its name is rather counter productive.

Perhaps many people think of a strip squeeze as running the long suit to reduce an opponent to one winner, then throwing him to lead up to an AQ or other tenace.
April 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This hand is a point short of passing the rule of 22, but the AKK, two tens, 5-4-4-0 shape and convenient suit placement are all strong plus features. It's surely an opening bid in any standard system.
April 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 46 47 48 49
.

Bottom Home Top