[f0rdy]

---

First in, all V.
Butler scored pairs, generic (ie fairly haphazard) club field of 12 tables.

Calls to choose from (that wouldn't be called psyches) are:
Pass, 1H, 2D (weak 2 in either major), 2H (weak, 5+H, 4+m), 3H, 4H
although I would expect universal condemnation for at least one of those.

What would you choose with the given conditions, and would you choose/consider other calls at any of:
different vulnerabilities, different scoring, different opposition?

[ArtK78]

Anything might work, but I would pass.

The suits are just so bad, you are begging to go for a number. And even if you don't, you could easily push partner into leading one of your "suits" and giving up a trick on the opening lead.

[han]

I would open 2D. Any other opening is too misdescriptive. I think that pass is completely fine, depending on your agreements.

[han]

BY the way, I would expect universal condemnation for 1H, 3H and 4H.

[mtvesuvius]

2♥ describes this hand perfectly, why are we playing Muiderberg if this hand isn't opened with 2♥?

I see no reason to suppress the club suit, and would condemn 1H/3H/4H/2D lol

[Phil]

Although I don't play Muiderberg why wouldn't I choose that here? While I don't like the texture of my suits, I do have two places to land if this is a misfit. In addition, I have two extra cards in my suits.

Of course 2♥ could be a loser, but on balance it seems fine. I also think its bad bridge to sit on your hands waiting for the perfect hands. If I were playing Muiderberg, I would feel fortunate to be dealt a 6-5 seven count.

[mike gill]

I voted for pass but I didn't really read the options carefully. The fact that I have an option to open a 5+/4+ hand 2H makes me wonder why this is even here, since that's exactly what I have.

[cherdano]

han, on 2011-January-19, 09:15, said:

I would open 2D. Any other opening is too misdescriptive. I think that pass is completely fine, depending on your agreements.

Is opening 2H, where we have 65xx instead of the expected 54xx shape, really more misdescriptive than opening 2D, where we have 65xx instead of the expected 63xx?
Maybe the answer is yes, I didn't mean this as a rhetorical question, as I have never played Muiderberg. But it seems to me that partner's general evaluation opposite a Muiderberg opening (the hand gets really powerful opposite a big heart-fit, otherwise we may be high enough in 2H) isn't that far off - I don't mind if he doesn't raise me with three hearts, or looks for the minor with 3244.

[Fluffy]

I find anything but 2♥ kind of ridicoulous, if we didn't play multi I think I'd just pass

[the hog]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-January-19, 10:43, said:

2♥ describes this hand perfectly, why are we playing Muiderberg if this hand isn't opened with 2♥?

I see no reason to suppress the club suit, and would condemn 1H/3H/4H/2D lol

I agree. Don't play conventions like this if you don't open a hand when you get it.

[BunnyGo]

han, on 2011-January-19, 09:15, said:

I would open 2D. Any other opening is too misdescriptive. I think that pass is completely fine, depending on your agreements.

han, on 2011-January-19, 09:16, said:

BY the way, I would expect universal condemnation for 1H, 3H and 4H.

As usual, I agree with Han.

[han]

Just some info for those who have never been to Muiderberg and have never played the convention:

If you ask a random Dutch player what Muiderberg shows, they will tell you that it shows a 5-card major (exactly) and at least a 4-card minor. People don't usually open Muiderberg with a 6-card major. Moreover, if you have the agreement about sometimes opening 2M on a 6-card suit, then you are not allowed to call it Muiderberg as it is misleading. This is enforced quite strictly by the directors, who won't even check whether you have the agreement or not. If you opened 2M on a 6-card suit and you or your partner explained it as Muiderberg, you will lose the ruling.

[the hog]

han, on 2011-January-20, 03:48, said:

Just some info for those who have never been to Muiderberg and have never played the convention:

If you ask a random Dutch player what Muiderberg shows, they will tell you that it shows a 5-card major (exactly) and at least a 4-card minor. People don't usually open Muiderberg with a 6-card major. Moreover, if you have the agreement about sometimes opening 2M on a 6-card suit, then you are not allowed to call it Muiderberg as it is misleading. This is enforced quite strictly by the directors, who won't even check whether you have the agreement or not. If you opened 2M on a 6-card suit and you or your partner explained it as Muiderberg, you will lose the ruling.

So please show us where the op called it Muiderberg. I believe his options included 5+ Major, 4+ minor. I can only see the volcanic one who named it thus, (and perhaps me by implication).

[mcphee]

playing 2H showing 5+H and 4+ minor this is clear cut 2H opening.

[Fluffy]

why should we care for the regulations on a small country from the third world?

[Free]

Fluffy, on 2011-January-20, 06:46, said:

why should we care for the regulations on a small country from the third world?

In another small country (one without a government, but ok) they do the same thing. So the small country from the third world is not alone.

[mtvesuvius]

I called it Muiderberg just out of lazyness for not wanting to type out the definition a few times.

I could have called it anything I want. The point is that when you have a hand that is qualified for a call in your system, and you do something else... Well, what's the point of having that call available?

I was unaware of the strict Dutch regulations, however, given the OP's descriptions, this hand is a clear 2♥.

[f0rdy]

the hog, on 2011-January-20, 04:30, said:

So please show us where the op called it Muiderberg. I believe his options included 5+ Major, 4+ minor. I can only see the volcanic one who named it thus, (and perhaps me by implication).

We used to call it Muiderberg until we took all but the most unambiguous names of conventions off our card to be replaced by descriptions.
While I'm not in Holland, I'm certainly averse to opening 2H with 6 of them; I certainly can't think of a 6-4 hand I'd want to open 2H rather than 2D.

My other concern was that it's quite a long way from the
x
Kxxxx
xxx
KQxx
that partner is going to expect, both for game and slam, making me more inclined to pass and describe it as responder.

Presumably those who think it an obvious 2H opener are happy that the poor suits and good controls will even out when partner judges the contract (except in the case of looking for 3NT, which is always a little messy after a Muiderberg opening)?

I suppose the remaining interesting question is what anyone would be inclined to open playing natural weak 2s?

[mtvesuvius]

f0rdy, on 2011-January-20, 13:01, said:

I suppose the remaining interesting question is what anyone would be inclined to open playing natural weak 2s?

I'd pass with almost all my partners, however there are one or two that I'd bid 2♥ with

[han]

the hog, on 2011-January-20, 04:30, said:

So please show us where the op called it Muiderberg. I can only see the volcanic one who named it thus.

Apart from Adam:

mtvesuvius, on 2011-January-19, 10:43, said:

Muiderberg

there was Phil:

Phil, on 2011-January-19, 11:06, said:

Muiderberg

and Arend:

cherdano, on 2011-January-19, 12:13, said:

Muiderberg

With 3 people talking about the Muiderberg convention, it shouldn't offend anybody if I post my understanding of how the convention is usually played. And guess what:

f0rdy, on 2011-January-20, 13:01, said:

We used to call it Muiderberg until we took all but the most unambiguous names of conventions off our card to be replaced by descriptions.

The OP also made it clear that he has the same understanding of the 2H opening as I do. Partner will never expect such a distributional hand, and will probably expect more defense. While I don't condemn the 2H opening, I would never choose it.