OK, this one makes no sense

[kenrexford]

A weird thing observed.

 

In the LM Pairs, I was playing with a gentleman from Sweden, and we played 2♦ Multi and 2M Muiderberg, until we found out that 2♦ Multi was not allowed. I had not heard of this aparently new rule that some mid-chart rules require a specific length round.

 

So, I checked this out later and found something that makes no sense.

 

Apparently, Multi 2♦ requires a 6-board round but Muiderberg is OK if the round is 2-board.

 

Huh?

 

When would you play Muiderberg without Multi???

 

Am I missing something?

[Stephen Tu]

Since when are ACBL convention regulations expected to have any logic behind them?

[awm]

I've done this actually.

 

Weak two bids (assuming you require a six-card suit) are a lot less frequent than the Muiderberg hands. And there have been a number of indications that people don't score that well on weak two bids.

 

The context I was actually using it in was a system where we opened pretty light in the majors. Of course, we need to sort out our opening range and it helps if only some distributions can be light. For a while we played that "1M is 8-15 but if 8-10 then it includes a 4+ card side suit" because we weren't real fond of opening light on 5332 hands and the 6cM hands in the 8-10 range could normally open a weak two bid (okay if the six card suit is garbage we might pass). But some of our follow-ups and competitive sequences seemed better if "1M is 8-15 but if 8-10 then it's a 6cM" with the 8-10 point hands (and some lighter hands too) opening Muiderberg. For example the six-card suit provision gave us some safety if we reached the 3-level on a 3-card limit raise.

[cherdano]

And there have been a number of indications that people don't score that well on weak two bids.

Such as? Must have missed them...

[jdonn]

And there have been a number of indications that people don't score that well on weak two bids.

My experience dictates the opposite. As does Fred's, which he posted a few weeks ago when discussing playing with teammates who don't use weak 2 bids.

[awm]

What I was referring to was a series of bridge-browser results which sample hands with a 6-card major to some suit quality and a general point range, and indicate that the people opening a weak two bid on these hands average negative IMP results. There are actually quite a number of these tests and they have been discussed on the forums before.

 

There are some caveats about this -- one observation is that the people who are really winning IMPs on these boards are not so much the passers as the people who open 2♦ multi, and that there are many reasons for this that have little to do with the merits of multi (i.e. people playing multi are usually an established partnership, non-beginners, etc).

[H_KARLUK]

Also, The ACBL conventions committee might refuse to sanction any defense to transfer opening bids at the one level. The Conventions Committee apparently doesn't want North Americans playing MOSCITO type methods and they're using the defense database as a tool to block this.

http://www.bridgehands.com/Conventions/ACBL_Mid_Chart.htm

The idea behind it they may think there's not much space for special defence especially in Pairs events.

Anyway, who knows authorities may wish to refresh issue and enlight newcomers if they have time.

[cherdano]

I am happy to offer a bet that Fantoni-Nunes do worse on the hands where they don't open a weak two (but the other table opens one) than on their average, if someone has a reasonably large data set to test this.

[H_KARLUK]

cherdano Posted on Dec 3 2008, 02:21 AM

I am happy to offer a bet that Fantoni-Nunes do worse on the hands where they don't open a weak two (but the other table opens one) than on their average, if someone has a reasonably large data set to test this.

 

 

Hello, hope helps :)

 

http://bridgebase09.bridgebase.com:81/vug/?C=M;O=D

 

Hamdi

 

ps I do not remember how many times I watched or commented their methods on Vu. Anyway I can say they recalibrated their CC of start.

[jdonn]

There are some caveats about this -- one observation is that the people who are really winning IMPs on these boards are not so much the passers as the people who open 2♦ multi, and that there are many reasons for this that have little to do with the merits of multi (i.e. people playing multi are usually an established partnership, non-beginners, etc).

That's one possiblity. Another is that preempts obviously vary a lot regarding style, arguably much more than most other bids. So with online bridge having so many unpracticed partnerships those auctions are going to be a lot less accurate than in a (even mildly) experienced partnership.

[han]

It makes perfect sense since muiderberg is much easier to play against than multi.

[kenrexford]

It makes perfect sense since muiderberg is much easier to play against than multi.

I think you are missing the question.

 

I meant that the two seem to (at least normally) be part of the same arrangement. Sort of like allowing 3♣ as Puppet Stayman but not allowing a 3♦ rebid by Opener to show one or both undisclosed four-card majors.

[paulg]

It makes perfect sense since muiderberg is much easier to play against than multi.

I think you are missing the question.

 

I meant that the two seem to (at least normally) be part of the same arrangement. Sort of like allowing 3♣ as Puppet Stayman but not allowing a 3♦ rebid by Opener to show one or both undisclosed four-card majors.

The Competition and Conventions Committee always gets a bad press.

 

Even when they appear to have done something sensible, like remove the unnecessary link between two arbitrary conventions.

 

They could have said that you can only play Multi and Muiderberg in 6-board rounds.

 

Instead, they have realised that Muiderberg is simpler to defend and permit that in 2-board rounds if a pair is inventive enough to be able to use it without playing Multi.

 

I'd have thought we'd have praised them for this.

 

Paul

[kenrexford]

Actually, calling Muiderberg a convention and not a treatment is bizarre to start with. Then, acting as if this treatment is midchart-worthy is really silly.

[awm]

I'd go so far as to say that Muiderberg is just a natural bid. Sure, there is some guarantee of a four card minor, but compared to playing "weak twos on five card suits" the only difference is that you can't be 5332. Any half-competent bridge player should be able to defend Muiderberg; I mean, it's a 2♠ opening that shows 5+ spades. It's rather embarrassing if Muiderberg isn't allowed in all events (and despite the defense database, I am far from convinced that it's not allowed in all ACBL events).

 

Multi 2♦ is a totally different issue. Of conventions that are in common use, it is probably the most difficult one to defend. This is a bid that shows no known suit and is frequently (for some partnerships always) a very weak hand. It can be passed without diamond length. It can lead to all sorts of shenanigans where the opening side tries to play in the "wrong" major to talk opponents out of a fit. Other conventions "similar to" multi (like 2♦ showing an unknown 5-5 hand, or 2♥ showing the same hand types as multi) are typically disallowed -- probably any attempt to come up with a "logical" scheme of regulations that is not too far from the usual regulations would actually disallow Multi completely -- it is allowed only because of its long history in some circles. Even experienced partnerships seem to sometimes have "accidents" defending Multi.

 

So from a regulation standpoint these two are radically different. It's true that people often play them together. But there's no particular reason you can't simply choose to play Muiderberg "instead of" weak two bids, and no particular reason this should be disallowed in any event just because Multi is hard to defend.

[maggieb]

It makes perfect sense since muiderberg is much easier to play against than multi.

I think you are missing the question.

 

I meant that the two seem to (at least normally) be part of the same arrangement. Sort of like allowing 3♣ as Puppet Stayman but not allowing a 3♦ rebid by Opener to show one or both undisclosed four-card majors.

Is it perhaps possible that someone has read your post, yes even understood the point you were trying to make and still doesn't agree?

 

It makes sense to allow muiderberg in pair games since it promises a given 5-card suit. Multi does not promise any given suit and is therefore not allowed in pair games. The fact that many people only want to play muiderberg when they also play multi should be irrelevant. Whether you and I like those rules also doesn't matter, the rules are clear (not the rules in general, just this particular part of the rules) and there actually is some logic behind it. I must say I am really surprised that you didn't know multi is not allowed in pair games, which US have you been living in?

 

Your analogy about puppet stayman is extremely poor since the two situations are not analogous at all. The original question is about two conventions that can be played side by side but don't have to be played side by side. Allowing puppet stayman but not allowing opener to respond to puppet stayman is a contradiction.

[whereagles]

Weak two bids (assuming you require a six-card suit) are a lot less frequent than the Muiderberg hands.

Unless you provide analytical or simulation data, I'll dismiss that claim as "statistical rubbish" :)

[kenrexford]

It makes perfect sense since muiderberg is much easier to play against than multi.

I think you are missing the question.

 

I meant that the two seem to (at least normally) be part of the same arrangement. Sort of like allowing 3♣ as Puppet Stayman but not allowing a 3♦ rebid by Opener to show one or both undisclosed four-card majors.

Is it perhaps possible that someone has read your post, yes even understood the point you were trying to make and still doesn't agree?

Of course that is possible.

 

This is why is said, "I think..." and "What I meant..." I thought perhaps my question was not understood.

 

I meant no offense for trying to clarify what I meant when I was confused by the response and thought it was non-responsive.

 

In fact, the humorous thing is that you yourself still seem to be missing what I was asking, in your observations. The question was NOT about the rules. The question was meant to be whether people play Muiderberg without playing Multi. I thought that Muiderberg was enabled by and and integral part of one multi approach.

 

Sure, I udnerstand that people could play Muiderberg without Multi, but I did not realize (until reading that some do) that this would make sense to anyone and was actually done.

 

It still seems like a related convention. I like Bart, and I like forcing notrumps, but I don't play Bart without forcing notrumps. If I were to hear that some people do play Bart despite NOT playing forcing notrumps, I would find this curious and strange and would ask why, hoping to learn some new perspective I had not heard of before (or for a good chuckle). If there were some sort of ACBL rule that allowed Bart as a GCC convention but made forcing notrump midchart, I would be double curious (and doubly prepped for a good laugh).

[JanM]

Sure, I udnerstand that people could play Muiderberg without Multi, but I did not realize (until reading that some do) that this would make sense to anyone and was actually done.

I was surprised to see that Auken-von Arnim had chosen to give up the weak 2♠ bid when not allowed to play multi - they used 2♦ as a weak 2♥ bid and 2M as Muiderberg. I suspect the reason for the 2M bids was that they're used to playing those that way and thought the possibility of forgetting was more serious than the need for weak 2 bids. But I still wonder why they chose to keep a weak 2♥ and lose 2♠ - maybe they figure that 3♠ is such a useful bid they don't mind having to bid that with some of the 2♠ hands.

[bid_em_up]

Weak two bids (assuming you require a six-card suit) are a lot less frequent than the Muiderberg hands.

Unless you provide analytical or simulation data, I'll dismiss that claim as "statistical rubbish" :)

Oh good grief, look it up. Here, I will save you the trouble of having to search for it.

 

http://www.dur.ac.uk/bridge.club/TEACHING/statistics.html

[whereagles]

Here, I will save you the trouble of having to search for it.

Thanks. A quick calculation shows that weak 2s are more frequent than muiderbergs at a rate of around 3 to 2. (Under assumptions of weak 2 in D/H/S, muiderberg Mm and 2♦ as multi.)

[kenrexford]

Here, I will save you the trouble of having to search for it.

Thanks. A quick calculation shows that weak 2s are more frequent than muiderbergs at a rate of around 3 to 2. (Under assumptions of weak 2 in D/H/S, muiderberg Mm and 2♦ as multi.)

Isn't the question simply whether, for instance, 2♥ as a weak two comes up more than 2♥ as Muiderberg?

 

If a weak two can be a five-card suit, with or without a minor, then the weak two comes up more than Muiderberg, because X+Y>X if X and Y are not negative.

 

If the two bids are mutually exclusive (Muiderberg never 6-card; weak two never 5-card), then the simple question is whether a hand with 5 hearts and 4-5 of either minor (and the appropriate HCP range) occurs more frequently or less frequently than hand with six hearts (and maybe not four spades), again with the required HCP range. You would also, it seems, need to tweak the HCP situation for each to eliminate hands where "too much" is on the outside.

 

The link does little to answer that complete question.

[han]

X+Y>X if X and Y are not negative.

Hmm.

 

The link does little to answer that complete question.

 

Agree.

[fromageGB]

I must say I am really surprised that you didn't know multi is not allowed in pair games, which US have you been living in?

Well, thanks for the info. Another good reason to live in the UK :P

 

Agree with Ken. I don't play Muiderberg but I do play 5card 2M bids, and there would then be serious gaps in my hand coverage if I couldn't play a multi. Having said that, they are separate conventions so there is no reason to have similar permissions.

[whereagles]

The link does little to answer that complete question.

Well, you just sum up probabilities of the respective shapes and then count cases.