[gwnn]

2nd seat all Red MP's

QJ9xx
x
KJx
KJxx

You didn't specifically agree to the strength-related requirements of muiderberg. But you play it.

[P_Marlowe]

Did we agree upon an opening style?

I think I go with 1S, it is close, but the
hand is better than other 12HCP hands.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

1♠ for me with most partners, 2♠ with my league partner who likes solid 1-bids (we play Muiderberg at MP, and team games with less than 12 boards per segment)

[foo]

gwnn, on Jun 13 2007, 04:35 AM, said:

2nd seat all Red MP's

♠QJ9xx♥x♦KJx♣KJxx

You didn't specifically agree to the strength-related requirements of muiderberg. But you play it.

Playing SA or 2/1 GF, IMHO you are a tad light to Open. With 7 losers and only 11 HCP, I definitely want 2 Quick Tricks. You don't have them.

Another way to look at this is that you are a touch control poor. ~7-8 of your HCP should be A and K's. Only 6 are.

2nd seat is where you have the largest chance of preempting pd. Given your hand, they are unlikely to open 1♠. If you pass and pd Opens, you learn more at a lower level than otherwise.

[Codo]

Given the explanations, pass is plain silly.

You could vote: Strong enough for a 1 Level opening, ok, open 1 Spade.
You could vote: Not strong enough for a 1 Level opening, fine to me too.
But in this case, you must open 2 Spade. You have a a hand that fits perfect in your 2 Spade bid, so not bidding 1 or 2 Spade is a strong break of partnership discipline.

I would open 2 Spade in 2. seat vul. but if pd will open 1 Spade, this is fine too.
I just see not enough aces tens and nines and too many jacks for this.

[Edmunte1]

1♠ - the queen of suits, 3 from the first 6 honours in ♠, some shape, all 11 working points, easy second call, it's not a close call for me

[SoTired]

1S. I tend to open all 11's that contain a singleton. This is too strong for Muiderberg. I play it 7-10, others play it 5-10. But 11 is definitely over the limit.

So by definition, if this is too strong for Muiderberg, it must be a 1-level opener.

I use the same principle when opening a weak 2. A hand too strong for a weak 2 is a 1-level opener. There is no gap btwn the two bids.

[pclayton]

Ive never understood preempting with these types of hands.

1. You have the spade suit.
2. You are a maximum and RHO has passed.
3. A good portion of your hand is in your fragment. How will you ever get to diamonds when its right?

So, the choice for me is between 1S and pass. I slightly prefer pass in a 2/1 system but Id open 1S in a strong club setting.

I like to open 5-4 11 counts, but this hand has a few strikes:

1. 3 jacks
2. Aceless
3. My 4 card suit is difficult to rebid if I hear 2H.

[whereagles]

I refuse to open a muiderberg on this PIECE OF JUNK.

Rating
pass or 1♠ = 10
2♠ = ZERO

[ochinko]

This is precisely the hand when you should be glad you play Muiderberg, otherwise you'd have to pass or open 1♠.

I don't understand why you would have any regrets to portray this hand as below opening, and take the chance to preempt LHO. Since you are vulnerable, partner will know you'd be closer to your maximum, and be in a great position to evaluate your combined strength.

For these points you could have 2 Aces and a King, not to mention some Tens. What you now have is three Jacks. Even though all of them are working they are still Jacks. And it's not even certain they are working, given that RHO is a passed hand.

I play multi with 7-10 points, but Muiderberg with 8-11, because with a 5 card major and a 4 card minor your chance of having a playable fit is smaller than with a 6 card major.

So here, being vulnerable, you show 10-11 with soft, rather than hard, values. Why bid anything else when 2♠ give you the chance to describe perfectly both your strength and shape?

Edit: And 2♠ also have the benefit of denying the possibility of a heart fit, so you don't have the problem of what to rebid on your partner's 2♥ bid if you open 1♠.

Or LHO jumps to 4♥ and partner doubles. If you started with 2♠, you'd be glad to defend. But if you opened 1♠ don't you feel guilty you promised more defensive tricks than you got?

And, of course, passing here is criminal.

[whereagles]

ochinko, on Jun 14 2007, 07:29 AM, said:

I don't understand why you would have any regrets to portray this hand as below opening, and take the chance to preempt LHO.

Sorry for being harsh, but have you ever heard of offense-to-defense ratio (ODR)?

On average, this hand should make something like 4-5 tricks when declaring and perhaps 2-3 defending. That's 2 extra tricks declaring. Compare this to a more typical muiderberg bid, say,

KQJxx
x
xxx
QJTx

5-6 tricks on offense, 0-1 on defense. That's FIVE extra tricks when declaring.

Bottom line: preemptive bids show hands with high ODR. The original hand has VERY LOW ODR. This is not about points, it's about HAND TYPE.

If you're gonna open a muiderberg on that, you'll be lying about the type of hand you have. One of the things that can happen with an expert pard is he'll take a "save" in 4♠ for -500 or -800 when 4♥ was already going 1 or 2 down.

[ochinko]

whereagles, on Jun 14 2007, 12:34 PM, said:

ochinko, on Jun 14 2007, 07:29 AM, said:

I don't understand why you would have any regrets to portray this hand as below opening, and take the chance to preempt LHO.

Sorry for being harsh, but have you ever heard of offense-to-defense ratio (ODR)?

On average, this hand should make something like 4-5 tricks when declaring and perhaps 2-3 defending. That's 2 extra tricks declaring. Compare this to a more typical muiderberg bid, say,

KQJxx
x
xxx
QJTx

5-6 tricks on offense, 0-1 on defense. That's FIVE extra tricks when declaring.

Bottom line: preemptive bids show hands with high ODR. The original hand has VERY LOW ODR. This is not about points, it's about HAND TYPE.

If you're gonna open a muiderberg on that, you'll be lying about the type of hand you have. One of the things that can happen with an expert pard is he'll take a "save" in 4♠ for -500 or -800 when 4♥ was already going 1 or 2 down.

I sympathize with your position. We've all been drunk at one time or another.

No, seriously. I have a weak, limited hand, and a perfect way to describe it. I want to get in and out of the bidding as quick as possible.

Yes, second position is the worst for preempting, and I could go down for a number. This would probably concern me a little if we were playing IMPs.

Yes, the hand that you show is even better for Muiderberg. But I won't waste space here to show many more 11 pts hands that would be more suitable for opening 1♠ than this one.

And if you pass this hand in MPs, I don't see how you could get positive results.

[whereagles]

ochinko, on Jun 14 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

I have a weak, limited hand, and a perfect way to describe it.

Well, that's the point. Take these two definitions for muiderberg:

1. 2♠ = shape 5-4, hcp 6-11
2. 2♠ = shape 5-4, usually low hcp but high ODR

By definition 1, to open 2♠ on the original hand is correct and impeccable.
By definition 2, a 2♠ opener is a sizeable distortion of what you actually have.

What we call a "preemptive bid" tends to agree more with definition 2 than 1, which is why I would NEVER open this a muiderberg. (Unless I want to deceive opps/pard deliberately.)

[ochinko]

whereagles, on Jun 14 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

What we call a "preemptive bid" tends to agree more with definition 2 than 1, which is why I would NEVER open this a muiderberg. (Unless I want to deceive opps/pard deliberately.)

Well, since for me passing here is out of the question, I bid 2♠ exactly because I find 1♠ to distort my holding and to be more dangerous.

If I open 1♠ and partner bids his five hearts, we'll be in trouble. If opps bid their hearts, partner would double them too prematurely, expecting more defense from me. Where ever you place them hearts, they are going to bite.

I want my partner to be informed of my limits, so he would be in a better position to know when to double, when to pass, when to bid more spades, or even try for a sacrifice in my minor. I have no fear partner would make a mistake, because I took the chance of informing him what I hold.

And even if 2♠ go down, is it very likely that opps would prefer to play there and abandon their game? After all, they too are vulnerable.

Opening 2♠ may be risky, but certainly not as risky as opening 1♠. And if I pass and hide my spades with my weakish hand, how can I hope I'll ever have the chance of bidding them?

[whereagles]

ochinko, on Jun 14 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

If I open 1♠ and partner bids his five hearts, we'll be in trouble. If opps bid their hearts, partner would double them too prematurely, expecting more defense from me.

Here I disagree. I think the original hand has adequate defense for a 1-level opener. Compare with, say

KQJxx
x
xxx
KQJx

This hand, despite 12 hcp, is far worse for defense than the original one. In fact, I would open this one 2♠!

[SoTired]

whereagles, on Jun 14 2007, 07:12 AM, said:

ochinko, on Jun 14 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

If I open 1♠ and partner bids his five hearts, we'll be in trouble. If opps bid their hearts, partner would double them too prematurely, expecting more defense from me.

Here I disagree. I think the original hand has adequate defense for a 1-level opener. Compare with, say

KQJxx
x
xxx
KQJx

This hand, despite 12 hcp, is far worse for defense than the original one. In fact, I would open this one 2♠!

Now HERE you really lost me.

I play 7-10 or 5-10 muiderberg, so I CAN'T open the subject hand with 2S because it is a discipline violation. I don't pass 11 HCP with a singleton, so I open 1S.

If I played 2S=6-11, then I WOULD open this hand 2S, knowing that our 1S/2S bids overlap a little.

But opening 2S on KQJxx x xxx KQJx, playing 6-11 is a SERIOUS violation of discipline. Not only is it 12 HCP, but it is a GREAT 12 HCP. It makes 4S if partner has a sub-minimum opener.

[whereagles]

If you define the muiderberg preempt as "54, low hcp but high ODR", it's no violation of discipline. It is in fact elegant, descriptive and correct. Of course, you can always define the muiderberg as you do: "54 and 6-11" regardless of the rest.

The claim is simply that my definition is better than yours and that is why I prefer 1♠ to 2♠ with the original hand

[ochinko]

What wasn't mentioned was the Rule of 20 (pts + length of the two longest suits). Those that use it would open 1♠ just as those who are focused on the singleton.

It isn't very precise though. I prefer the Rule of 22 (Rule of 20 + 2 defensive tricks). The hand satisfies the Rule of 20 but clearly not the Rule of 22 which again tips the scale towards Muiderberg.

[ochinko]

whereagles, on Jun 14 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

ochinko, on Jun 14 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

If I open 1♠ and partner bids his five hearts, we'll be in trouble. If opps bid their hearts, partner would double them too prematurely, expecting more defense from me.

Here I disagree. I think the original hand has adequate defense for a 1-level opener. Compare with, say

KQJxx
x
xxx
KQJx

This hand, despite 12 hcp, is far worse for defense than the original one. In fact, I would open this one 2♠!

I don't agree with you here. You can't say what the defense of the hand that you give is until you know whether or not you have fits in the black suits. It has good defense on misfit hands, and vice versa.

[whereagles]

All the ODR stuff works best when there's a fit. On misfits hcp are king, true. However, misfits are rarer than fit hands.