Muiderberg Two-Bids

[32519]

With the 2012 European Championships starting soon, and the growing popularity of Muiderberg Two-Bids, what is the best defense to this conventional bid?

 

In this thread Euro 2012 Systems 54 pairs are playing some form of Multi so presumably they are playing Muiderberg as well.

[kgr]

I play same defense as against weak 2M.

[manudude03]

Yeah, just treat it like a weak 2. If it must be 5-5, then doubles can be slightly offshape.

 

By the way, just because a pair plays multi, it does not necessarily mean they play muiderberg too.

[hrothgar]

In this thread Euro 2012 Systems 54 pairs are playing some form of Multi so presumably they are playing Muiderberg as well.

 

Where do you come up with these ideas?

 

Did you ever consider taking the time to look at some of the system cards being used and see what folks are actually playing?

[blackshoe]

Where do you come up with these ideas?

 

Did you ever consider taking the time to look at some of the system cards being used and see what folks are actually playing?

 

This is the internet. Facts are irrelevant. :ph34r:

[32519]

By the way, just because a pair plays multi, it does not necessarily mean they play muiderberg too.

 

I fully accept this but Muiderberg Two’s are a powerful option to use for the freed up 2♥ and 2♠ bids. I never checked what the 54 Multi pairs are doing with these bids but at least some of them must be using Muiderberg.

 

I ran a number of random hands through BBO’s deal generator and was surprised to see how often it dealt a double fit in opener’s two suits (or at least a partial double fit). When responder has a good hand and a known fit in one of opener’s two suits, what would a typical auction look like in search of a double fit and a possible slam?

 

Here is an example hand dealt by BBO’s deal generator: With this hand North already knows there is a double fit. So how would the auction typically continue?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat976hj6d5ckjt52&w=s8hq7432dk7432ca3&n=skq52hadaj86cq976&e=sj43hkt985dqt9c84&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2s(Muiderberg)p]399|300[/hv]

[the hog]

The fact is that very few at top level play Muiderberg. If you play 2 suited bids most play 5/5s. CRO or OCR or similar.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 

 

 

I ran a number of random hands through BBO’s deal generator and was surprised to see how often it dealt a double fit in opener’s two suits (or at least a partial double fit). When responder has a good hand and a known fit in one of opener’s two suits, what would a typical auction look like in search of a double fit and a possible slam?

 

Here is an example hand dealt by BBO’s deal generator: With this hand North already knows there is a double fit. So how would the auction typically continue?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat976hj6d5ckjt52&w=s8hq7432dk7432ca3&n=skq52hadaj86cq976&e=sj43hkt985dqt9c84&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2s(Muiderberg)p]399|300[/hv]

 

Here is a "disciplined" Muiderberg treatment which Zel might appreciate ( contains RELAYS for some of the options ) :

 

2S! - 2NT! ( asks for minor )

3C - ??

...... 3D! = GF, agrees ♣

...... 3H = GF, my own suit, asks for support

...... 3S = GF, sets ♠ as trump, asks distribution

...... 3NT/4S/5C = to play

...... 4C! = double-fit ; asks distribution

 

After :... - 4C!

??

.. 4D! = ♦ shortness ( stiff or void )

.. 4H! = ♥ shortness ( stiff or void )

.. 4S = no shortness ( 5 2 2 4 )

After:

4D! - 4NT ( 6 Ace-RKC including ♠Q but not ♣Q )

5H ( 2 - ♠Q ) - 6S ( no RED losers, 5 of 6 key cards, both black Q )

[ulven]

http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/multi2D.pdf

 

"However, strangely

enough, the 2♥ and 2♠ Tartan Twos suffer an average loss of -

0.31."

 

"...the most damning

feature of the opening is the fact that its users dedicate the 2♥

and 2♠ openings to weak two suiters with five card in the bid

major and a minor and those openings present a heavy negative

IMP outcome."

 

"The data includes all the deals played in the European Championships from 1997 to 2004 and the knock-out stages of Olympics

and World Championships from 1987 to 2003, whenever there

are comparisons from all tables in play."

 

[Tartan Two is like Muiderberg]

[paulg]

When I was analysing all the systems I was a little carefree with the two hearts openers, not noting whether they were 5-4 or 5-5 as the Polish Two Hearts is different from Muiderberg. But looking at the two spades openers is more accurate ...

 

Two Spades openers

 

39 Weak Two Bid

22 Muiderberg (5 spades, 4+ minor)

17 Polish (5 spades, 5 minor)

10 Constructive Weak Two

4 Acol Strong Two Bid (8 playing tricks in spades)

1 NV Muiderberg V weak

6 Others

[mgoetze]

When I was analysing all the systems I was a little carefree with the two hearts openers, not noting whether they were 5-4 or 5-5 as the Polish Two Hearts is different from Muiderberg. But looking at the two spades openers is more accurate ...

Two comments:

 

1. This doesn't tell the whole story as it is perfectly reasonable to play e.g. 2♠ as spades and a minor and 2♥ as both majors.

2. Some people play 2♥ as hearts and a minor, some as hearts and any other suit. I consider the latter significantly worse.

[Cthulhu D]

Two comments:

 

1. This doesn't tell the whole story as it is perfectly reasonable to play e.g. 2♠ as spades and a minor and 2♥ as both majors.

2. Some people play 2♥ as hearts and a minor, some as hearts and any other suit. I consider the latter significantly worse.

 

The most common multi paring seems to be garbage multi with 3-8 going through 2D and direct being 9-11. This probably warrants a different defence. Presumably the 2M is quite pure and the 2D is insane.

[32519]

Here is a "disciplined" Muiderberg treatment which Zel might appreciate ( contains RELAYS for some of the options ) :

 

2S! - 2NT! ( asks for minor )

3C - ??

...... 3D! = GF, agrees ♣

...... 3H = GF, my own suit, asks for support

...... 3S = GF, sets ♠ as trump, asks distribution

...... 3NT/4S/5C = to play

...... 4C! = double-fit ; asks distribution

 

After :... - 4C!

??

.. 4D! = ♦ shortness ( stiff or void )

.. 4H! = ♥ shortness ( stiff or void )

.. 4S = no shortness ( 5 2 2 4 )

After:

4D! - 4NT ( 6 Ace-RKC including ♠Q but not ♣Q )

5H ( 2 - ♠Q ) - 6S ( no RED losers, 5 of 6 key cards, both black Q )

 

+1 for this suggestion of yours.

 

How would your auction change with the red and black suit holdings reversed in both opener's and responder's hands? You still have a double suit fit.

 

Thanks again.

[32519]

http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/multi2D.pdf

 

"However, strangely

enough, the 2♥ and 2♠ Tartan Twos suffer an average loss of -

0.31."

 

"...the most damning

feature of the opening is the fact that its users dedicate the 2♥

and 2♠ openings to weak two suiters with five card in the bid

major and a minor and those openings present a heavy negative

IMP outcome."

 

"The data includes all the deals played in the European Championships from 1997 to 2004 and the knock-out stages of Olympics

and World Championships from 1987 to 2003, whenever there

are comparisons from all tables in play."

 

[Tartan Two is like Muiderberg]

 

Having read this article as well I must confess that I too was most surprised by this finding. The author goes on to say why he thought this was the reason: "This last data was, in my opinion, the most surprising of the lot as I would have instinctively assumed that the Tartan Twos are quite effective. Maybe such a result is due to the fact that they do reveal quite a lot about the shape of opener's hand and that may be of crucial importance in the opposition successfully declaring some borderline contracts."

[paulg]

When I was analysing all the systems I was a little carefree with the two hearts openers, not noting whether they were 5-4 or 5-5 as the Polish Two Hearts is different from Muiderberg. But looking at the two spades openers is more accurate ...

Two comments:

 

1. This doesn't tell the whole story as it is perfectly reasonable to play e.g. 2♠ as spades and a minor and 2♥ as both majors.

2. Some people play 2♥ as hearts and a minor, some as hearts and any other suit. I consider the latter significantly worse.

My methodology was to use 'Muiderberg' to mean 5M, 4+m and 'Polish' to mean that it was 5-5 with hearts and another or spades and a minor. This meant that those who were playing 2♥ as 5-5 with hearts and a minor were lumped into the Muiderberg camp, so using the two hearts numbers to differentiate between those who could be 5-4 and those who could be 5-5 was not feasible. However the two spades numbers do allow this comparison.

 

The other problem with the analysis is that it does not capture the style. In reality, perhaps the Muiderberg openers are never 5-4 at unfavourable, or never with 5422 distribution, etc. Very few pairs disclose this on their system card.

 

If someone has the time and energy to spare, I expect all the information will be available at the end of the championships to analyse.

[han]

http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/multi2D.pdf

 

"However, strangely

enough, the 2♥ and 2♠ Tartan Twos suffer an average loss of -

0.31."

 

"...the most damning

feature of the opening is the fact that its users dedicate the 2♥

and 2♠ openings to weak two suiters with five card in the bid

major and a minor and those openings present a heavy negative

IMP outcome."

 

"The data includes all the deals played in the European Championships from 1997 to 2004 and the knock-out stages of Olympics

and World Championships from 1987 to 2003, whenever there

are comparisons from all tables in play."

 

[Tartan Two is like Muiderberg]

 

I know the article very well, but I consider it fairly meaningless. They don't say how often these 2-suited openings were opened, and they don't compare the results with the average results achieved by those pairs. If Tanzania had played in all of those tournaments with some weird convention, you can bet that the convention would not do well regardless of how good it was. Throwing different conventions together (Polish, Muiderberg, 5-4, 5-5) also seems wrong. But the worst was really that they did not tell how often these conventions came up.

[32519]

I know the article very well, but I consider it fairly meaningless. They don't say how often these 2-suited openings were opened, and they don't compare the results with the average results achieved by those pairs. If Tanzania had played in all of those tournaments with some weird convention, you can bet that the convention would not do well regardless of how good it was. Throwing different conventions together (Polish, Muiderberg, 5-4, 5-5) also seems wrong. But the worst was really that they did not tell how often these conventions came up.

 

Good point.

 

As a matter of curiousity I had another look at the 2011 Bermuda Bowl CCs. Out of a total of 66, 25 pairs played the "weak-only" Multi. The 2♥ / 2♠ bid in turn was used by these players as follows:

14(15) Played some form of Muiderberg / Polish 2s (whatever)

The rest were using the 2♥ / 2♠ bid as a sound weak 2 opening in the suit (9-11 HCP, some even as high as 10-13 HCP)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

+1 for this suggestion of yours.

 

How would your auction change with the red and black suit holdings reversed in both opener's and responder's hands? You still have a double suit fit.

 

Thanks again.

When I was first shown this treatment, it was pointed out that the following are vital to your bidding -- learning both

a ) Opener's minor and in some systems whether 4 or 5 cards ; and

b ) Opener's distribution ( shortness, if any ).

 

When ♥ are the Muiderberg Major, you have to be a bit more creative.

You would lose a vital step if 2NT! were the "ask for minor" .

So, I suggest : 2H! - 2S! = the "ask" .

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is what I come up for the ♠ case and ♦ is the minor:

2S! - 2NT! ( asks for minor )

3D - ??

...... 3H! = GF, agrees Diam

...... 3S = GF, sets ♠ as trump, asks distribution

........ etc, etc

...... 4C! = double-fit ( ♠ & ♦ ); asks distribution:

................. - ??

....................... 4D! = 5 2 4 2

....................... 4H! = ♥--shortness

....................... 4S! = ♣--shortness

 

Note: I still used the 4C! ( instead of 4D ) bid for the double-fit of ♠ & ♦ ... in order to leave room for three distribution bids at or below 4S . [ Edit: or switch the meanings of 4D! and 4S! where 4D! = ♣-shortness and 4S! = NO shortness ( 5 2 4 2 ) consistent with the previous case where ♣ is the minor ] .

[32519]

Round 7: Board 5 of the 51st European Championships produced some amazing results on a variety of opening bids including –

1. Two-Suited hands (below opening strength)

2. Normal 1-of-a-suit

3. Pass

4. Multi

 

Group A

 

Group B

[32519]

Since opening this thread, I've changed my mind concerning Muiderberg. I wonder how many others have changed their minds as well.

[Antrax]

I learned from your thread I can defend by calling the director and having the score adjusted for improper disclosure.

[PhilKing]

The weird thing is that the thread asked what the recommended defence was, yet that hardly received a passing mention.

 

Basically, you defend as you would against a weak two opening but with a couple of important differences:

 

1. Double is for take-out, but does not promise support for all three unbid suits. The point is that they have one of the minors, so being 1444 or similar is not only unlikely, but is not even particularly desirable. So you should double 2♠ with:

 

♠xxx

♥AQxx

♦AKJxx

♣x

 

I would even do so with the minors reversed. Is it risk free? Clearly not, but it works most of the time.

 

2. Pass and double is penalties. Example from the database:

 

[Event ""]

[site ""]

[Date ""]

[board "16"]

[West "Jacek Pszczola"]

[North "Andrew Gromov"]

[East "Piotr Gawrys"]

[south "Aleksander Petrunin"]

[Dealer "W"]

[Vulnerable "EW"]

[Deal "W:8.K754.J8642.764 QT642.Q.T53.QJT3 AKJ953.AJ92..AK2 7.T863.AKQ97.985"]

[scoring ""]

[Declarer "N"]

[Contract "3CX"]

[Result "6"]

[auction "w"]Pass 2S Pass 2NT Pass 3C X AP

[Play "E"]

CA C5 C7 CT

SA S7 S8 S2

S3 H3 C4 S4

CK C8 C6 C3

C2 C9 H4 CJ

S5 D9 DJ D3

HA H6 H5 HQ

[Room "Open"]

[score "NS -500"]

[bCFlags "1f"]

 

For those who find the hand unreadable, Gawrys was able to make a delayed "penalty" double on:

 

♠AKJ953

♥AJ92

♦-

♣AK2

 

Yes, he would be stuck if they find diamonds, but these people must be punished for bidding with 5-4!

[helene_t]

I know the article very well, but I consider it fairly meaningless.

 

pseudo-code for standard practice in applied statistics:

 

 

provisory_inference <- some_very_naive_inference

 

DO UNTIL provisory_inference == desired_inference {

REFINE (provisory_inference)

}

 

PUBLISH (provisory_inference)

[32519]

The most common multi paring seems to be garbage multi with 3-8 going through 2D and direct being 9-11. This probably warrants a different defence. Presumably the 2M is quite pure and the 2D is insane.

How often and by how much do you gain from this? Once your major is known, it is also known that most of your measly HCPs will be in that suit. With the opponents declaring they are going to be finessing partner in the other three suits for any missing high cards. Another downside is wasting the 2♦ which could be used for something else. You can put some discipline into the 2♥ and 2♠ bids by insisting that they are sound when red (9-11 HCP). White you still have OGUST/Feature Ask/Shortage Ask when interested in game?

[Finch]

How often and by how much do you gain from this? Once your major is known, it is also known that most of your measly HCPs will be in that suit. With the opponents declaring they are going to be finessing partner in the other three suits for any missing high cards.

 

No. The whole point of the garbage multi is that it is a totally random pre-empt. I've seen xxxxx Kx Kxx xxx and similar type hands opened at favourable. It's intended to be basically just a random destructive opening, and it can be quite effective. Obviously you play a different scheme of responses to the ones you would use opposite a normal weak two.