[32519]

the hog, on 2013-July-27, 04:45, said:

Clearly such logic is beyond the comprehension of the numeric one, Frederick. If you want to argue even more, numeric one, ask yourself how many world class players play Fantunes. I know of only one other pair who have represented their country who play Looney Tunes as they call it and they are Australian. Then ask yourself "why"?

As for you and your champions, go and read BBO Terms of Service. I am surprised one of the forum moderators hasn’t got hold of you yet.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2013-July-27, 07:04, said:

Why all the venom that is continuously being spat out? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that an intermediate is challenging the logic behind your favourite convention(s)? There has been a lot of interest in many of these types of threads. So until I start the next one……cheers!

I would hardly say that people are spitting venom.
It's much more akin to mocking the village idiot...

This isn't necessarily admirable behaviour, but it is quite common and fairly well understood.

[barmar]

Please stop all the name-calling in this thread. Calling someone the "village idiot" and saying "stupidity shows no boundaries" are inappropriate here. If reports of inappropriate posts continue, the thread will be closed.

[32519]

barmar, on 2013-July-29, 09:16, said:

Please stop all the name-calling in this thread. Calling someone the "village idiot" and saying "stupidity shows no boundaries" are inappropriate here. If reports of inappropriate posts continue, the thread will be closed.

Let it go Barry. I've seen this all too often. When someone runs out of arguments they resort to this sort of thing as "their final stand" to gain the upperhand. It doesn't worry me in the least, just like water running off a ducks back.

[gwnn]

Yes, we wrote all our arguments and you ignored all of them. We ran out of arguments that you wouldn't ignore. We don't have anything new other than being amused or annoyed by your refusal to read them.

[the hog]

As far as my English language skills are concerned, no one called anyone a village idiot. It would appear that some cannot comprehend the written word.

[MrAce]

the hog, on 2013-July-29, 18:07, said:

As far as my English language skills are concerned, no one called anyone a village idiot. It would appear that some cannot comprehend the written word.

I was thinking the same thing, but didn't say a thing since English is not my native language and i might be wrong.

[Free]

32519, on 2013-July-27, 07:04, said:

Why all the venom that is continuously being spat out? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that an intermediate is challenging the logic behind your favourite convention(s)? There has been a lot of interest in many of these types of threads. So until I start the next one……cheers!

It probably has to do with the fact that the intermediate doesn't WANT to hear arguments that suggest HIS logic is wrong. It has to do with the fact that you don't stick to facts but make things up (like Fantunes upping their 2M openings). It has also to do with the fact that you're making uninformed claims like your complete argument against my post (see further). It also has to do with the fact that you take one little word out of context and create an entire theory about something without considering the whole picture. And for some reason you also don't seem to realize that there truly is a reason why you're all alone in a discussion: you're just wrong...

32519, on 2013-July-27, 07:04, said:

Seems like you never read the CC properly. So I’ll help you with some extracts –
1C = 14+ (good 12/13)
1D = 14+ (good 12/13)
1H = 14+ (good 12/13) 5+ H OR 11-13 with 5+ H and 4S
1S = 14+ (good 12/13) 5+ S OR 11-13 with 5+ S and 4H

I'll tell you even more: I have their system notes (in Italian) and based my own Fantunes system on those. I've played that in one partnership for a while, made some modifications, invented Kickback Turbo in the process,... So I guess I have a much better understanding of how their system works than you will ever have based on a CC (which changes almost every time they play a new tournament).

Anyway, again, you don't look at the whole picture. They've always played 14+ (that's why their 1-level responses over 1♦ and 1M are 0-9HCP and their GF hands over any 1-level opening are 10+HCP) but sometimes upgrade hands. Perhaps they've got some TD calls about dubious upgrades, so they added a little bit of text to their CC to cover for their upgrades (like many put "(14)15-17" as their 1NT range because they frequently upgrade 14 counts). Btw, on the first page they explain that their 'good 12/13' contains a 5 card suit. So it's definitely NOT every 12/13 hand.

They also used to open 2M with 5M-4OM and they moved those hands to 1M instead. I've tried that with my partner and couldn't make it work properly. They can play cards much better than you and I, so they can get away with it.

Is it really that difficult to agree that this is a realistic view?

32519, on 2013-July-27, 07:04, said:

What am I getting at?
With 5+ H and 4S, 11-13 HCP, they open 1H
With 5+S and 4H, 11-13 HCP, they open 1S
With a 5-card major and a 4-card minor, 10-13 HCP, they open 2 of the major

See above. Clearly you never read the CC before posting this. It will never be 5521 as you suggested.

Aaaaah, I knew you'd fall into the trap. Since you are such a perfectionist, you'll realize that their 1M openings state "5+M, 4OM" which means at least a 5 card in the opened Major and EXACTLY 4 cards in the other Major. Moreover their 2M openings don't deny a 4+ card in the OM. So it's actually you who should read their CC very carefully and realize that they can do whatever they want with 10-13 and 5-5 in the Majors.

32519, on 2013-July-27, 07:04, said:

What am I getting at?
The number 1 and 2 ranked players in the world play sound 2H and 2S openings with unbalanced hands, whether that is a 6-card suit or 5M4m. They allow lesser mortals to make silly pre-empts (Garbage Multi/Muiderberg) and then extract favourable penalty doubles from them or make thin games because the hand layout and HCP distribution has been gifted to them.

Sigh...

[32519]

What do the laws say, when in a Teams-Match where you play plenty of boards against the same pair/team (especially if you reach the knock-out stages), and your CC says 5M4+m for a 2-level opening in the majors, and your top class opponents notice that you don't actually open the 5M4+m hands, but only the 5M5+m hands? Does this constitute some undisclosed agreement between you and partner?

[awm]

I am not sure who these people are. I've had Muiderberg opened against me on a 5-4 hand on a number of occasions. I'm sure if a pair had some "secret agreement" to only do it with 5-5 and you can produce evidence to prove this (which does seem a bit difficult) they will get in some trouble.

[gwnn]

Don't report them, the Bilderberg group will eliminate you.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2013-August-17, 00:20, said:

What do the laws say, when in a Teams-Match where you play plenty of boards against the same pair/team (especially if you reach the knock-out stages), and your CC says 5M4+m for a 2-level opening in the majors, and your top class opponents notice that you don't actually open the 5M4+m hands, but only the 5M5+m hands? Does this constitute some undisclosed agreement between you and partner?

About this word "plenty" that you're using

Please show me an appropriate null hypothesis that can be used to approve or reject your claim...
Next, describe the number of boards you expect to be necessary to approve / reject the null hypothesis and the 95% level...

[Free]

32519, on 2013-August-17, 00:20, said:

What do the laws say, when in a Teams-Match where you play plenty of boards against the same pair/team (especially if you reach the knock-out stages), and your CC says 5M4+m for a 2-level opening in the majors, and your top class opponents notice that you don't actually open the 5M4+m hands, but only the 5M5+m hands? Does this constitute some undisclosed agreement between you and partner?

Are you planning to mislead your opps on purpose while trying to hide behind the laws? How low can you fall?

If you don't open 5M4m hands, then write "5M5+m" instead of "5M4+m" on your CC, it's not that hard you know...

[32519]

Free, on 2013-August-17, 05:22, said:

Are you planning to mislead your opps on purpose while trying to hide behind the laws? How low can you fall?

If you don't open 5M4m hands, then write "5M5+m" instead of "5M4+m" on your CC, it's not that hard you know...

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.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2013-August-18, 23:26, said:

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.

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

[the hog]

Can you post evidence to support your contention, please?

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2013-August-19, 03:46, said:

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]

32519, on 2013-August-18, 23:26, said:

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!