OK, this one makes no sense

[kenrexford]

The link does little to answer that complete question.

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

But, shape is not the only concern.

[whereagles]

You can add as many requirements as you want. I'm only interested in the higher-order effect: shape. All other effects are second to this one, thus my simplifications.

[mtvesuvius]

I love to play a Multi 2♦ and a Muiderberg 2M, however since Multi has been banned and my partners don't like my 5332 openings, I implemented Muiderberg... We now also open any 9+ HCP with a six card suit. Also, with less and a good suit, the 3 level is still always available. Muiderberg seems to go well with Multi, however it can stand alone. I am extremely dissapointed that Muiderberg is defined as a Mid-Chart convention, it is extremely simple, and all weak 2 treatments still apply. It should make no difference that it has an agreement of showing only 5 and an outside suit! I would love to be able to play Muiderberg in a side game or at the club, but unfortunately I will not be able to do so for a long time.

[kenrexford]

You can add as many requirements as you want. I'm only interested in the higher-order effect: shape. All other effects are second to this one, thus my simplifications.

Well, that seems kind of strange.

 

Make a pronounced thesis.

Prove it by proving unrelated facts.

 

Not sure that works.

 

What I meant by other concerns:

 

1. The number of hands with a required range seems to be governed to some degree by the pattern. If I have a six-card suit, and no other suits of 4+ length, then I have two cards that cannot be honors. If I have a five-card suit and a suit of 4-5 cards in length, then I have 1.5 cards that cannot be honors. That seems to slightly shift the possibility of certain patterns having the required range.

 

2. The location of high cards is also critical. As a simple point, I doubt people would view a 2♠ opening as appropriate with a range of 6-11 with ♠xxxxxx ♥Axx ♦Kx ♣Ax. A weak two generally requires some limited COV in one suit, whereas a Muiderberg allows for limited COV in two suits.

 

Adding into this is the problem that, although the definition of a Muiderberg opening seems fairly standardized, the definition of an appropriate weak two is not remotely standarized. Knowing which weak two definition is being considered seems rather important, as there is a vast difference between "six-card suit with two of the top three honors and three of the top five honors" and "a five-card or longer suit with any quality and any shape, even five-card side suits being possible."

[cherdano]

The link does little to answer that complete question.

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

Or, as in your case, miss some (or was it missum?) cases...

[whereagles]

Or, as in your case, miss some (or was it missum?) cases...

Dont be silly.

[hrothgar]

Or, as in your case, miss some (or was it missum?) cases...

Dont be silly.

Your results really don't match any of the ones that I've seen.

 

It would be helpful if you could provide a thorough description what you're doing so we can show precisely where you're making your mistake.

 

For example what set of shapes are you judging to be appropriate for a weak two opening in Hearts?

 

Precisely what set of shapes are you using for a Muiderberg 2♥ opening?

 

For example, you hypothetically might post something like the following:

 

Weak 2♥ Opening = 3.06%

 

All 6322 hands = 5.64% x .25

All 6331 hands = 3.45% x .25

All 6421 hands with a 4 card minor = 4.7% x .25 x .66666

 

Muiderberg 2♥ opening = 4.471%

 

All 5431 hands with a 4 card minor = 12.93% x .25 x .66666

All 5422 hands with a 4 card minor = 10.6% x .666666

All 6421 hands with a 4 card minor = 4.7% x .25 x .666666

[cherdano]

I think this thread is a good example for the difference between confidence and arrogance.

[Echognome]

Good exercise for a simulation... :rolleyes:

[awm]

Weak 2♥ Opening:

 

6322 patterns 5.64% times 0.25 (because the six-card suit must be heart): 1.41%

6331 patterns 3.45% times 0.25 (because the six-card suit must be heart): 0.8625%

6421 patterns 4.7% times 0.25 times 0.66 (six-card suit ♥, 4-card suit not ♠): 0.783%

 

Total: 3.056%

 

Muiderberg 2♥:

 

5431 patterns 12.93% times 0.25 times 0.66 (5♥ and 4-card suit not ♠): 2.155%

5422 patterns 10.6% times 0.25 times 0.66 (5♥ and 4-card suit not ♠): 1.767%

5521 patterns 3.17% times 0.33 (six suit pairs, we're interested in two of them): 1.057%

5530 patterns 0.895% times 0.33 (six suit pairs, we're interested in two of them): 0.298%

6421 patterns 4.7% times 0.25 times 0.66 (six ♥ and 4-minor): 0.783%

 

Total: 6.06%

 

So having the "right shape" for muiderberg is roughly twice as common as having the "right shape" for a six-card weak two bid. We could add in 6-5 hands and the like, but they would add the same amount to both tallies. The only question is whether point count and/or suit quality somehow biases this, but the reality is that the correlation between the odds of having a point count in some range like 6-10 and having a particular shape is pretty low (at least for commonly appearing shapes). Suit quality restrictions on openings vary pretty widely based on the people bidding and the vulnerability, so they're hard to model, but assuming similar suit quality rules for the two bids they are unlikely to swing things much.

[hrothgar]

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.)

Are you on crack ???

 

Let's play a simple little substitution game and assume that:

 

All hands that are suitable for a weak 2H / 2S opening are also suitable for a multi 2D opening. (Probably not realistic, lets use this a simplifying assumption)

 

In this case, when you compare the frequency of

 

(weak 2 in D/H/S)

 

versus

 

(muiderberg Mm and 2♦ as multi)

 

we get to cancel

 

weak 2 in Hearts and Spades on one side, and cancel the multi on the other

 

We are now comparing the frequency of a

 

Weak 2 in Diamonds versus (Muilderberg 2♥ + Muilderberg 2♠)

 

And you're claiming that your "calculations" show that a weak two in Diamonds is about 1.5 times more frequent....

[TimG]

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.)

 

weak 2 in Hearts and Spades on one side, and cancel the multi on the other

 

We are no comparing the frequency of a

 

Weak 2 in Diamonds versus (Muilderberg 2♥ + Muilderberg 2♠)

 

And you're claiming that your "calculations" show that a weak two in Diamonds is about 1.5 times more frequent....

To get the 3:2 ratio you'd have to open a weak two in diamonds more than 1.5 times as often as Muilderberg in either major (unless your weak two and multi frequencies are zero).

[hrothgar]

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.)

 

weak 2 in Hearts and Spades on one side, and cancel the multi on the other

 

We are no comparing the frequency of a

 

Weak 2 in Diamonds versus (Muilderberg 2♥ + Muilderberg 2♠)

 

And you're claiming that your "calculations" show that a weak two in Diamonds is about 1.5 times more frequent....

To get the 3:2 ratio you'd have to open a weak two in diamonds more than 1.5 times as often as Muilderberg in either major (unless your weak two and multi frequencies are zero).

Thanks for clarifying my original post...

 

This would all be much easier if the forum software support [snark] and [/snark]

[TimG]

This would all be much easier if the forum software support [snark] and [/snark]

Sorry if I mistook snark for a lapse in mathematical reasoning.

[whereagles]

Richard: I compared

 

6 card weak 2 in D/H/S

vs

muiderberg Mm 54 or 55

 

and found a 3/2 rate to 1st case. I forgot what I had in mind when I wrote "2♦ as multi". Now, if one is to compare

 

6 card weak 2 D/H/S

vs

muiderberg Mm 54 or 55 AND 2D as multi

 

then the 2nd is more frequent, of course.

[whereagles]

I think this thread is a good example for the difference between confidence and arrogance.

It also shows your (lack of) character.

[hrothgar]

Richard: I compared

 

6 card weak 2 in D/H/S

vs

muiderberg Mm 54 or 55

 

and found a 3/2 rate to 1st case.

Comment 1:

 

The comparison that you are making seems more than a bit peculiar: You are comparing the combined frequency of three separate bids to that of two bids.

 

The comparison seems a bit biased (to say the least)

 

Comment 2:

 

Even with this bias, your numbers look (very) wrong

 

Look at the calculation that I did comparing the frequency of a Muiderberg 2♥ with a weak two in Hearts. This is a VERY conservative estimate since I excluded 5-5 patterns from the Muiderberg opening.

 

Frequency of a Muiderberg 2♥ = 4.471%

 

Frequency of a Muiderberg opening in Hearts or Spades = ~9%

 

Next, look at the frequency of a weak two in Hearts: I calculated this at roughly 3.06%. (Adam arrived at the same number) The frequency of a weak two in Dimaonds, Hearts, or Spades is something around 9.1% (Its actually going to be a bit less, because there are two 6-4 patterns with a side 4 card major.

 

Frequency of a weak two in Diamonds, Hearts, or Spades = ~9%

 

I have no idea where this 1.5 times as frequent comment is coming from...

In order to arrive at this figure you're going to need to start opening all sorts of 54xx and 5332 patterns with a week two...

 

Its fine if you want to do so, but this isn't standard practice

 

I want to retun to the original post that started this little diversion

 

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"

 

Put up or shut up

[cherdano]

I think this thread is a good example for the difference between confidence and arrogance.

It also shows your (lack of) character.

True, it shows part of my character. You

• assumed that Adam made his claim without having looked at any data - given how many posts you have made in this forum you should really know Adam better; then
  
• dismissed his claim without any base, then
  
• got the numbers horribly wrong when you tried to verify them, then
  
• ignored it when several posters including me (ok, maybe not in the nicest manner) pointed out you must have made a mistake, then
  
• finally made an apologetic post in which you still got the numbers completely wrong (just the 2M muiderbergs are still more frequent than the 3 weak twos, as you might have noticed if you had actually looked at Adam's posts.
  

In summary, you made several ignorant posts and completely ignored other poster's points.

It's part of my forum character to call out such behaviour. This might not be the most productive contribution possible, but I don't think you have a stand to complain about it...

[maggieb]

Don't let him get to you cherdano, there are people out there who are not as comfortable with statistics and who really appreciate your careful comments!

[whereagles]

Put up or shut up

Ok, I shut up then.

[whereagles]

It also shows your (lack of) character.

True, it shows part of my character.

I'm glad we got that sorted out. Have a nice day.

[helene_t]

The reason why Muiderberg is allowed is that it has an anchor suit. The reason multi isn't is that it doesn't.

 

It may or may not be true that Muiderberg without multi makes no sense but it isn't the c&c's job to weed out useless agreements, only illegal ones. There are plenty of useless things that are allowed, why single "Muiderberg without multi" out?

[whereagles]

Weak 2♥ Opening:

6322 / 6331 / 6421

Total: 3.056%

 

Muiderberg 2♥:

5431 / 5422 / 5521 / 5530 / 6421

Total: 6.06%

Taking your assumptions, if we add up D/C/H weak 2s and H/S muiderbergs, we get to ~9% for the weak 2 and ~12% for muider.

 

I worked on equivalent assumptions, but allowed any 64 in the weak 2 and no 64/55 in the muiderberg. That slight change was enough to reach the 3/2 split I mentioned (using data from the other site). Adding 55s would make it around 4/3. Frequencies seem to depend a bit on how strict one is with the openings. Adding a multi would make (muider + multi) clearly more frequent, of course.

 

There are two other (secondary, but important) factors. One is, as you mentioned, honors. I think weak 2s fare better in this respect because there's just one, long suit to fill with high cards.

 

The other factor is how often you end up playing the minor after a muider. In my experience, this is a rare, so, in practice, a muider is like a 5-card weak 2 in disguise.

[kenrexford]

I'm thinking that the statistical analyses is missing a huge point. The original idea, as I understood it, was to play Muiderberg instead of Weak Two's even if Multi was not available, because supposedly Muiderberg comes up more often than Weak Twos'.

 

If that was the premise, then the comparisons including Multi or a weak 2♦ are nonsensical. The sole question is whether 2♥ would be bid more often if it was Muiderberg or if it was Weak.

[hrothgar]

Weak 2♥ Opening:

6322 / 6331 / 6421

Total: 3.056%

 

Muiderberg 2♥:

5431 / 5422 / 5521 / 5530 / 6421

Total: 6.06%

Taking your assumptions, if we add up D/C/H weak 2s and H/S muiderbergs, we get to ~9% for the weak 2 and ~12% for muider.

 

I worked on equivalent assumptions, but allowed any 64 in the weak 2 and no 64/55 in the muiderberg. That slight change was enough to reach the 3/2 split I mentioned (using data from the other site). Adding 55s would make it around 4/3. Frequencies seem to depend a bit on how strict one is with the openings. Adding a multi would make (muider + multi) clearly more frequent, of course.

Comment 1: Your operating assumptions are completely ridiculous.

 

Your definition for a weak two is overly broad

Your definition for a muiderberg is ridiculously restrictive

 

Comment 2: You are comparing apples to oranges

 

You are comparing the frequency of three bids with that of two bids which is essentially a meaningless comparison

 

I'm sure that if you work hard enough, you can redefine these expressions to support your ridiculous assertions. However, in doing so, you destroy your ability to communicate with anyone trapped in the "reality based community".

 

(In all honesty, I feel like I'm having a discussion with an eight year old who is whose only goal is trying to redefine reality rather than admitting that he doesn't know what he's talking about)

 

Oh yeah, even with all this twisting you still don't quite hit 3:2 (Its a lot closer, but not quite there)

 

Frequency of weak 2s = 11.3175%

 

All 6322 hands = 5.64% x .25

All 6331 hands = 3.45% x .25

All 6421 hands = 4.7% x .25

All 6430 hands = 1.3% x .25

 

Sum = 3.7725

3.7725 x 3 = 11.3175

 

Frequency of a Muiderberg Twos = 7.84%

 

All 5431 hands with a 4 card minor = 12.93% x .25 x .66666

All 5422 hands with a 4 card minor = 10.6% x .666666

 

Sum = 3.92%

3.92% x 2 = 7.84%

 

7.84% / 11.32% = .6925