The Muiderberg Hoax

[the hog]

Can you post evidence to support your contention, please?

[helene_t]

This is probably an outgrowth of Wilkosz getting banned rather than a shift in the definition of Muiderberg...

Who knows if those pairs used to play Wilkosz. Anyway, they almost certainly didn't call their 5+5 openings "Muiderberg".

[32519]

During the knockout stages of the big tournaments, 48 boards and upwards the further you progress are fairly common. At the end of every round, team members compare contracts and results (which also get compared to the hand records once they are distributed). The players who progress to the knockout stages aren’t monkeys. They’ve been around the block once or twice and are quick to spot something out of the ordinary. Isn’t that one of the reasons you have an “Appeals Committee,” if you believe you have been prejudiced in some or other way? All you need is two boards to place doubt on the integrity on any particular pair.

 

So if your CC says:

2-level major suit openings show 5M4+m, undisclosed partnership information could easily include any of the following –

1. Only open when you have 5 in the minor suit as well.

2. Opening with 4m is fine if your HCP are concentrated in the minor suit. Now partner knows that he has a very playable minor suit to escape to if necessary.

3. If the HCP are more or less evenly distributed between the 2-suits, opening with 4m is fine if your hand is max (10 HCP). Not only do you have something to work with, but you also have something to defend with if the opponents outbid you. There is still a chance to play them down.

4. Only open at favourable vulnerability, and in 1st or 2nd seat when the minor suit only contains 4-cards.

 

I have been perusing some of the 2013 Bermuda Bowl CCs. Some of the players have explicitly stated that their 2M openings promise 5M5m while others simply state 5M4+m. So despite what has already been posted in this thread, seems as though some players have decided to insist on 5 in the minor suit as well.

The more I ponder on the Muiderberg Hoax, the more convinced I am that it really is a hoax. Alternatively, it is only the suicidal who open 2M with only 4-cards in the minor suit and minimal values. Why do I say that?

1. Many players open light nowadays, especially at favourable vulnerability, on distributional hands, and even more so if they have the boss suit.

2. Because of 1 the WBF employs the Rule-of-18 to define the boundary between light opening bids and HUMS.

3. England employs the Rule-of-19. So with 5M4m and 10 HCP, opening the bidding with the Rule-of-19 is no problem at all.

4. With 5M5m and 10 HCP, (almost) all will open the bidding on level-1 using the Rule-of-20. No need to consume a whole level of bidding space.

 

Having scrutinised a number of the CCs for the 2013 Bermuda Bowl, many players categorically state that their 2M opening promises 5+m as well. The non-suicidal players who open 2M with only 4-vards in the minor suit may well have undisclosed partnership agreements.

[manudude03]

The rule-of-18 and rule-of-19 apply to normal 1 level openers, it doesn't apply to muiderberg and other preeempts. That much should be obvious, do you really consider opening a normal weak 2 on AKJTxx x xxx xxx a HUM?. As far as the 5-4 hands, you are allowed to use judgment, but then again going back to normal weak 2s, I suppose saying a 2S opener shows a 6 card suit, 6-9 HCP and 2 of the top 3 honours is bad disclosure if someone in 2nd seat unfavourable decides to pass AQ5432 xx xxx xx or opens 2S with QJxxxxx x Qxx Jx.

[the hog]

How many times do you need to be told,5/5s are not Muiderberg. You persist in using the same name for another bid entirely. Call them Polish 2s if you want, but Muiderberg they are not!

[Free]

How many times do you need to be told,5/5s are not Muiderberg. You persist in using the same name for another bid entirely. Call them Polish 2s if you want, but Muiderberg they are not!

I give up and suggest you do the same. Even a wall is more open to reason than the numeric one...

[32519]

The rule-of-18 and rule-of-19 apply to normal 1 level openers, it doesn't apply to muiderberg and other preeempts. That much should be obvious.

I am fully aware that the Rule-of-18 and the Rule-of-19 apply to 1 level openers, which is exactly my point.

1. Why open a hand on the 2-level which can be opened on the 1-level?

2. With 1 in place, why would then then open a crappy 5M4m hand on the 2-level at the risk of going for a number.

 

(Not entirely) off topic, but at our local club last night, RHO opened a natural weak 2 in ♦. I held 12 HCP but my only 4-card suit was the ♦K1093. So I pass. Partner doubled for take-out. What do I do, a) bid 2NT, or b) pass? I passed and RHO went down 3 for -500, which was the top score for us.

Now apply the same scenario to opening a crappy 5M4m hand. Firstly you have 1-card less in the major suit (if you choose to sit the double), and secondly, escaping to level-3 with junk you are in jeopardy of going for an even bigger number.

 

Bet you a BBO dollar that most who have played Muiderberg in the past have modified the definition (for themselves) to what Hrothgar posted higher up in this thread.

[the hog]

I give up and suggest you do the same. Even a wall is more open to reason than the numeric one...

 

Yes, I agree. It is a waste of time talking to a lump of iron.

[Zelandakh]

I could not find a post where hrothgar redefined Muiderberg, only ones where he pointed out that 5-4 was correct. As to the subject of not opening every 5-4 hand in range, here is a thread from 2011 that touched on that subject. It contains some support from several posters for adopting a 5-5 (non-Muiderberg) style. And there are certainly benefits to that approach, especially at the highest level. However, I firmly believe that Muiderberg is a significant winner at intermediate/advanced level with half-decent judgement. That statistics from its use by my former partner and me on BBO back that up strongly too. And that was while playing an opening style significantly lighter than is common for 2/1 systems.

[Trinidad]

Yes, I agree. It is a waste of time talking to a lump of iron.

No, no...

 

The numbers commonly associated to lumps of iron are 304 and 316, not 32519.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

I am fully aware that the Rule-of-18 and the Rule-of-19 apply to 1 level openers, which is exactly my point.

1. Why open a hand on the 2-level which can be opened on the 1-level?

2. With 1 in place, why would then then open a crappy 5M4m hand on the 2-level at the risk of going for a number.

The existence of rules of 18, 19, whatever does not carry the implication that players should, or do, open all hands which qualify.