[32519]

 barmar, on 2013-July-08, 10:48, said:

Does anyone open 5-4 Muiderberg in 3rd seat? In 1st/2nd seat, you can hope that partner has enough strength to prevent that disastrous forcing defense. Once he's passed, it seems like suicide.

 helene_t, on 2013-July-09, 02:58, said:

Almost everyone applies the same shape criteria in all seats, if anything a 4-4 or 5-3 is more likely in 3rd seat when white. There are some who require 5-5 when vulnerable but it's quite rare.

If you open 2M in third seat and catch partner with a singleton M, he will almost certainly have at least 8 cards in the minors since he didn't open a muiderberg himself. And since he doesn't need 2NT as a GF relay, he can bid 2NT with 45 or 44 minors. Which frees 3♣ which can be played as natural. I am not sure if it is better to play it as six clubs or as 3-5, but in any case your chances of scrambling to your best fit are decent as long as you have discussed these things with p.

I don't buy this third seat opener. Partner is a passed hand, not opening any of the other Multi options which the 2♦ bid makes room for:
1. 2♦ as a weak 2 in either major
2. No Muiderber 5M4m 5-10 HCP himself
3. No 2NT for the minors

Opening third on a weak 5-7 HCP 5M4m hand is suicidal. In third I'm pretty confident that it is a decent Muiderberg hand i.e. 8-10 HCP and 5M5m.

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2013-July-09, 06:26, said:

Opening third on a weak 5-7 HCP 5M4m hand is suicidal. In third I'm pretty confident that it is a decent Muiderberg hand i.e. 8-10 HCP and 5M5m.

Two weeks back, you couldn't properly write a Muiderberg sim because you didn't understand the definition of the opening.
Now you're lecturing people on how it should be played...

[blackshoe]

Interesting, Rik. In the ACBL no convention can legitimately be "explained" just by naming it — including Stayman, which of course "everybody knows" what it means.

Quote

If 'everybody knows' such and such, then it ain't so. -- Robert Heinlein, From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long.

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2013-July-09, 06:51, said:

Two weeks back, you couldn't properly write a Muiderberg sim because you didn't understand the definition of the opening.
Now you're lecturing people on how it should be played...

Yes...

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2013-July-09, 06:51, said:

Two weeks back, you couldn't properly write a Muiderberg sim because you didn't understand the definition of the opening.Now you're lecturing people on how it should be played...

 32519, on 2013-July-09, 07:34, said:

Yes...

...and besides...

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2013-July-09, 06:51, said:

Two weeks back, you couldn't properly write a Muiderberg sim because you didn't understand the definition of the opening.Now you're lecturing people on how it should be played...

 32519, on 2013-July-09, 07:34, said:

Yes...

 32519, on 2013-July-09, 07:35, said:

...and besides...

.................no one has yet convinced me that I'm wrong!

[gwnn]

 32519, on 2013-July-09, 07:37, said:

.................no one has yet convinced me that I'm wrong!

Maybe you should stop opening hundreds of threads if you then go on and ignore the thousands of replies you receive. The only replies you maybe take seriously are the joke posts in the Secret Bridge Olympics thread.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-09, 07:07, said:

Interesting, Rik. In the ACBL no convention can legitimately be "explained" just by naming it — including Stayman, which of course "everybody knows" what it means.

Then again, no one ever asks for an explanation of 1NT-2♣, so the issue doesn't actually come up.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, they do when we do it (of course, it's Alerted, and I'm a known TD and rules stickler, so there is some incentive to ask)

Edit: at one point we had the following auction:

South: 1NT
North: "12-14"
West: 2♣
East: "Alert"
North: "Please Explain"
East: "She wants me to bid 2♦ so she can show her hand"

Now, I knew both that that is at *best* incomplete information (and effectively useless), but I was *so* hoping that partner would double so that:

North: X
South: "Alert"
East: "Please Explain"
South: "She wants me to bid 2♦ so she can show her hand"

Note that our normal explanation is "she either wants to play 2♦, or has one of several invitational or better hands." But I just wouldn't have been able to resist.

[sfi]

 barmar, on 2013-July-09, 09:40, said:

Then again, no one ever asks for an explanation of 1NT-2♣, so the issue doesn't actually come up.

This just goes to highlight regional differences. In Australia everyone asks for an explanation on this auction because it is played so many different ways. We occasionally get pitying looks for our Neanderthal system when we reply 'simple Stayman, asking for a four card major but doesn't promise one'.

[Avoidance]

My experience with these sort of bids at Pairs over a number of years is that Vulnerability is critical. With 5-4 they are +EPV Non-vulnerable & -EPV
Vulnerable.

[Vampyr]

 PhilKing, on 2013-July-08, 04:38, said:

4-4 was even possible on a Friday night, and I suspect even 4333 in the hands of its creator ...

Fair enough, because he plays the spots off the cards.

 gwnn, on 2013-July-09, 07:48, said:

The only replies you maybe take seriously are the joke posts in the Secret Bridge Olympics thread.

That is totally my favourite thread.

 barmar, on 2013-July-09, 09:40, said:

Then again, no one ever asks for an explanation of 1NT-2♣, so the issue doesn't actually come up.

 sfi, on 2013-July-09, 15:17, said:

This just goes to highlight regional differences. In Australia everyone asks for an explanation on this auction because it is played so many different ways. We occasionally get pitying looks for our Neanderthal system when we reply 'simple Stayman, asking for a four card major but doesn't promise one'.

So in Australia and USA Stayman is alerted rather than announced?

[blackshoe]

I don't know about Australia, but in the US Stayman is neither alerted nor announced.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-10, 09:22, said:

I don't know about Australia, but in the US Stayman is neither alerted nor announced.

Right. My comment above was in reference to an unalerted 2♣ response. If it's alerted, I would certainly expect opponents to ask, since in the ACBL the alert implies that the pair is not using some form of Stayman.

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-10, 08:37, said:

So in Australia and USA Stayman is alerted rather than announced?

In Australia, a 2♣ response to an opening 1NT is never alerted. It's defined as 'self-alerting', just like doubles, redoubles, and bids above 3NT (except for opening bids). There is no concept of announcements in Australia, although it may be introduced in the near future.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-09, 07:07, said:

Interesting, Rik. In the ACBL no convention can legitimately be "explained" just by naming it — including Stayman, which of course "everybody knows" what it means.

I don't know whether this list still exists, but there used to be a list of abbreviations for WBF convention cards. It contained, among others:

F1: Forcing for one round
GF: Game forcing
SPL: Splinter
STAY: Stayman
SUPP: Support

The fact that the WBF allows an abbreviation for Stayman as an explanation on its CCs indicates that they consider 'Stayman' to be an appropriate description (at least for CC purposes). Seen in that light it isn't that strange that an NBO allows players to explain some of the most popular conventions by their name, even if it is a big no-no in the ACBL.

Rik

[32519]

 helene_t, on 2013-July-08, 04:37, said:

Netherlands is a bit of the land of secretary birds so you will get lynched if you disclose your 5-5 agreement as Muiderberg. It must be exactly 5 in the major and 4-8 in the minor. Sometimes people will call it Muiderzand, Modderheuvel etc because they are afraid of running into troubles with opps or directors with idiosyncratic ideas about what exactly "Muiderberg" is supposed to mean.

I will say this one more time. To specify Muiderberg as 5M4-8m is nothing but a hoax, maybe to intimidate all players from novice to intermediate. I don’t believe that players from advanced upwards will fall for the hoax. Just look at these odds:
1. Exactly 5M4m 5-10 HCP = 1.03% X 2 = 2.06%
2. Exactly 5M5m 5-10 HCP = 0.32% X 2 = 0.64%
3. Exactly 5M6m 5-10 HCP = 0.05% X 2 = 0.10%
4. Exactly 5M7m 5-10 HCP = ?
5. Exactly 5M8m 5-10 HCP = ?

The last two are so remote that BBOs deal generator fails to spit out a probability percentage. To open 5M4m when red or partner is already a passed hand is just asking for trouble. No doubt there are some who OCCASIONALLY DO OPEN A 5M4m Muiderberg (most likely when the HCP are concentrated in the minor suit and white and 1st or 2nd seat). I HAVE NEVER SEEN A 5M4m MUIDERBERG AT THE TABLE. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN 5/5.

Calling it Modderheuvel is appropriate. Translated into English it means Mud-Hill!

Go figure?

[Zelandakh]

Now calculate the size of the minor suit fit given that Responder has 0-1 cards in the major and, for simplicity, 3+ cards in both minors. Things are slightly more rosy than this due to tricks such as those alluded to earlier (sometimes we can get out in Responder's suit instead) but that is probably too difficult for you to model. Incidentally, I recommend you switch to using percentages of hands given that a Muiderberg 2M was opened - it makes the numbers clearer and should make it easier for you to spot your statistical errors. oh yes, and noone is specifying Muiderberg as 5M-8m; but to specify it as 5M4m would clearly be misinformation when 5-5s are a significant part of the hands held. Something you need to understand is that not all 5-4 hands in range are opened 2M and that needs to be factored into your numbers.

[gwnn]

No need to repeat your uninformed, vacuous opinion 32159 times. We understood you the first time. All posters from NL and BE have laughed at you and told you you were wrong. Nobody even said that you were possibly right (I told you that I prefer 5-5 when vulnerable but very few people play it that way). Using caps will also not help.

[32519]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-July-11, 01:07, said:

Now calculate the size of the minor suit fit given that Responder has 0-1 cards in the major and, for simplicity, 3+ cards in both minors. Things are slightly more rosy than this due to tricks such as those alluded to earlier (sometimes we can get out in Responder's suit instead) but that is probably too difficult for you to model. Incidentally, I recommend you switch to using percentages of hands given that a Muiderberg 2M was opened - it makes the numbers clearer and should make it easier for you to spot your statistical errors. oh yes, and noone is specifying Muiderberg as 5M-8m; but to specify it as 5M4m would clearly be misinformation when 5-5s are a significant part of the hands held. Something you need to understand is that not all 5-4 hands in range are opened 2M and that needs to be factored into your numbers.

OK, so took up your challenge. I rejected your 3+ suggestion and went for 4+ instead to ensure our side has at least a 4/4 fit. This is what I got:
1. 0-10 HCP, 0-1M, 4m4m in the minors = 1.84%
2. 11-30 HCP, 0-1M, 4m4m in the minors = 1.44%
3. Combined = 3.28%

Why 0-10? If partner opened with 10 HCP and I also hold 10, then the HCP are split evenly between the two sides.
Why 11-30? If partner opened with 10 HCP I cannot hold more than 30.

Still doesn’t look too great when partner is a passed hand or you are red.