[whereagles]

cherdano, on Dec 5 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

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

It also shows your (lack of) character.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Dec 6 2008, 02:13 AM, said:

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

Quote

Quote

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]

whereagles, on Dec 5 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 5 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Dec 6 2008, 12:44 AM, said:

Put up or shut up

Ok, I shut up then.

[whereagles]

cherdano, on Dec 6 2008, 12:58 AM, said:

whereagles, on Dec 5 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

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]

awm, on Dec 5 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

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]

whereagles, on Dec 6 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

awm, on Dec 5 2008, 07:14 PM, said:

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

[TimG]

Suppose that you have a 2D method that you just must use, something like Flannery or Mexican, and you are deciding what to do with your 2M openings. Now, you might want to compare the frequency of weak-twos in the majors with Muiderberg Twos.

Frequency of weak two = 6.1%

All 6322 hands = 5.64% x 2/4
All 6331 hands = 3.45% x 2/4
All 6421 hands = 4.7% x 2/4 x 4/6 (we don't open a weak two with four cards in oM)
All 6430 hands = 1.3% x 0 (we don't open a weak two with a void)

Frequency of Muiderberg = 9.98%

All 5431 hands with a 4 card minor = 12.93% x 2/4 x 4/6
All 5422 hands with a 4 card minor = 10.6% x 2/4 x 2/3
All 5521 hands with a 5M + 5m = 3.2% x 8/12

9.98/6.1 > 3/2

QED

[whereagles]

Well, I was going to say something, but I'll just be off. Got better things to do than to continue this discussion.

awm, if you want to discuss the figures, send me a pm.

[han]

There should be a hopeful smillie for occasions like this.

whereagles, on Dec 6 2008, 07:51 AM, said:

Ok, I shut up then.

whereagles, on Dec 6 2008, 07:52 AM, said:

Have a nice day.

whereagles, on Dec 6 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

Well, I was going to say something, but I'll just be off. Got better things to do than to continue this discussion.

[MarkDean]

If anybody cares, I built a spreadsheet which gives you the odds of shapes within certain point ranges. So you can say what % of hands are 5431 with 11-21 HCP for example. I can send to anybody who wants it, or if you want to give me the assumptions for weak 2s etc I can give the numbers. Yes, I am a nerd.

[cherdano]

whereagles, on Dec 6 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

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.

I actually pretty much agree with this point. Does anyone have data how often you end up playing in a minor after a 54 Muiderberg?

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Dec 8 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

whereagles, on Dec 6 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

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.

I actually pretty much agree with this point. Does anyone have data how often you end up playing in a minor after a 54 Muiderberg?

Strangely, in my brief experience with Muiderberg, I think we played at the five-level or higher in the minor (or had bid at that level and then defended) on the majority of hands. This was, of course, assuredly weird.