[hrothgar]

The ACBL amended the GCC to explicitly sanction an "Opening bid of 2♥ or 2♠ showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor"

Bloody well time (and we finally have a resolution to the long standing forum argument regarding whether or not Muiderberg was legal at the GCC level.

The also changed the midchart to permit "A weak 2♦ or 2♥ opening bid showing at least 5-4 in the majors, if the five-card suit is unknown in events where each round or segment is at least six-boards long."

Of course, this being the ACBL, they've failed to publish an approved defense to the method, meaning that no one can use it. But at least their heart is in the right place. Who knows. Maybe in another decade, they'll allow 4-4 patterns.

[paulg]

 hrothgar, on 2014-July-31, 18:11, said:

The ACBL amended the GCC to explicitly sanction an "Opening bid of 2♥ or 2♠ showing a weak two bid, with a four-card minor"

Bloody well time (and we finally have a resolution to the long standing forum argument regarding whether or not Muiderberg was legal at the GCC level.

I thought Muiderberg allowed a four-card or longer minor. This is not currently permitted by the GCC - your agreement must be that it is precisely a four-card minor. A further change to permit a 'four-card or longer' minor will be presented to the BOD at the fall NABC.

[hrothgar]

 paulg, on 2014-August-01, 01:07, said:

I thought Muiderberg allowed a four-card or longer minor. This is not currently permitted by the GCC - your agreement must be that it is precisely a four-card minor. A further change to permit a 'four-card or longer' minor will be presented to the BOD at the fall NABC.

I've played with some Dutch folk who were very explicit that Muiderberg should not be made with a 4+ card minor.
I'd appreciate any opinions from the other side of the pond

[Zelandakh]

Muiderberg is also specifically a 5 card major (although some play 5+ and call it Muiderberg).

[helene_t]

 hrothgar, on 2014-August-01, 03:10, said:

I've played with some Dutch folk who were very explicit that Muiderberg should not be made with a 4+ card minor.
I'd appreciate any opinions from the other side of the pond

It shows exactly five of the major and 4+ of the minor. This is universal among tournament players. Of course you could argue about whether a very bad 6-card major is ok and many don't like to use it with 5-6. But certainly 5-4 and 5-5 are the normal shapes.

If your source is any knowledgable you must almost certainly have misunderstood them. Many tend to avoid it with 5-4 - if it shows 5-5 it's usually not called Muiderberg but some "tend to" be 5-5, somewhat depending on honour location and vulnerability.

But the idea that you preempt with 5-4 but pass with 5-5 makes no sense.

The most common rebid scheme after the 2NT GF relay is:
3m: 5-4
3M: 5-5, ♥ shows clubs and ♠ shows diamonds
3N: (50)44
4m: 5-6

Btw, I don't see how this is important. As long as you can't play Multi it makes little sense to play Muiderberg.

[hrothgar]

Thanks Helene

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2014-August-01, 04:16, said:

Btw, I don't see how this is important. As long as you can't play Multi it makes little sense to play Muiderberg.

This is the crux of the matter. I cannot see the take-up on the option to play these openings being very high even if the 4+ amendment does go through.

 helene_t, on 2014-August-01, 04:16, said:

The most common rebid scheme after the 2NT GF relay is:

I have always played this relay as INV+ with the scheme

3m = that minot + min
3♥ = clubs + max
3♠ = diamonds + max
3NT = 4-4 minors + max

but still use the name Muiderberg. Would that get me the same rap on the knuckles as including 6-4s or not including 5-4s would in Holland? I have seen yet another response scheme aroud too, provided to me by a Portuguese lady many years back, but I would need to check through old notes to remember the details.

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-01, 05:26, said:

Would that get me the same rap on the knuckles as including 6-4s or not including 5-4s would in Holland?

Some TDs (and/or opponents) are pretty facist about correct use of convention names so if you don't play the opening exactly as described in BM Rood (or whichever document is considered canonical at the moment) you should not call it Muiderberg. If you call it Muiderberg and it turns out that your p had a 6-card suit you could easily get a pp. I think it is one of the few things you can get a pp for. As always, it is better not to use convention names. But you know that

That said, it might not matter what rebids you play. Some play your scheme or something similar and the also call it Muiderberg.

[paulg]

 helene_t, on 2014-August-01, 04:16, said:

Btw, I don't see how this is important. As long as you can't play Multi it makes little sense to play Muiderberg.

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-01, 05:26, said:

This is the crux of the matter. I cannot see the take-up on the option to play these openings being very high even if the 4+ amendment does go through.

I agree although it will reduce the number of pre-alerts and defences I need to take to the nationals.

[barmar]

 helene_t, on 2014-August-01, 05:40, said:

Some TDs (and/or opponents) are pretty facist about correct use of convention names so if you don't play the opening exactly as described in BM Rood (or whichever document is considered canonical at the moment) you should not call it Muiderberg. If you call it Muiderberg and it turns out that your p had a 6-card suit you could easily get a pp. I think it is one of the few things you can get a pp for. As always, it is better not to use convention names. But you know that

That said, it might not matter what rebids you play. Some play your scheme or something similar and the also call it Muiderberg.

In ACBL, and probably many other jurisdictions, the name you use for your convention shouldn't be critical. When explaining a bid, you're supposed to describe the meaning, not just give the name of a convention. This rule recognizes that most conventions are not played the same way by all players.


The only potential confusion would be if you write the name on your convention card, and the opponent only reads the CC instead of asking for an explanation. CCs are necessarily a summary, it's not feasible to put all the details there. But if you know you play Muiderberg differently from most, it shouldn't be difficult to write "Modified Muiderberg" on the CC; that will warn the opponent that they should not assume it's like the version they're familiar with.

[whereagles]

 hrothgar, on 2014-August-01, 03:10, said:

I've played with some Dutch folk who were very explicit that Muiderberg should not be made with a 4+ card minor.
I'd appreciate any opinions from the other side of the pond

Van Cleef's book on Muiderberg is based on 5-4s. The argument is 5-5s are too rare for the convention to be of any use.

[steve2005]

 whereagles, on 2014-August-01, 09:41, said:

Van Cleef's book on Muiderberg is based on 5-4s. The argument is 5-5s are too rare for the convention to be of any use.

Ok but as i read it ACBL wants you to preempt on 5-4 and presumably pass with the rare 5-5 which is a better hand to preempt with.
and like Helene_t said as long as you cant play multi 2♦ convention makes no sense

[hrothgar]

 steve2005, on 2014-August-01, 11:08, said:

Ok but as i read it ACBL wants you to preempt on 5-4 and presumably pass with the rare 5-5 which is a better hand to preempt with.
and like Helene_t said as long as you cant play multi 2♦ convention makes no sense

5/4 and 5-5 patterns are a LOT more frequent than 6322 and 6331s.
I think there is something to be said for playing Muiderberg even without a multi

[rbforster]

 hrothgar, on 2014-August-01, 12:03, said:

5/4 and 5-5 patterns are a LOT more frequent than 6322 and 6331s.
I think there is something to be said for playing Muiderberg even without a multi

Actually it's not so much the shapes as it is that there are two possible minors which doubles the odds. A specific 5+/4+ two suiter is about the same as a 6 card weak two in terms of frequency. Playing 2♥ as 5/4+ for the majors, either longer, is just about the same likelihood as a standard weak 2♥.

[IMP_Jan]

Folks, just to be sure. 'Muiderberg' was invented some 35 years ago by two Dutch players (Onno Janssens and Willem Boegem).
By the time I started to play with Onno I called those type of openings, I gave it the name of Muiderberg, a small town
near Amsterdam where Onno lived. Mid nineties I wrote a book on the Muiderberg (in Dutch though) merely due to the fact
it was getting very popular in The Netherlands (we even won WC's with it). And yes, Muiderberg are much recommended
to open on 5 (no 6) M and 4+ m.
Jan van Cleeff