[mycroft]

no percentage of 3Hx?

Of course, I don't play Muiderberg, and don't know how often a 5H-6D hand is opened 2H.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-January-19, 04:49, said:

no percentage of 3Hx?

Of course, I don't play Muiderberg, and don't know how often a 5H-6D hand is opened 2H.

Assuming 2H is 5-4 or 5-5, East is surely unlikely to correct to 3H, and West won't know that he is not going from a 4-3 fit into a 5-1 fit. In 3D he might get to ruff a couple of spades on a good day.

[joostb1]

Muiderberg means 5M/4+m. The 4+ can be a long suit. Playing in Holland today (MP's) I got KJTxx-10x-KQTxxx, which many players opened 2S.
Actually, I think E is remarkably honest. After the explanation of his bid by W, he could have passed 3D, had S and N not bid and explained afterwards that he thought his hand might be more useful in diamonds, ruffing possible both in spades and hearts and having at least an equal fit in diamonds to that in hearts (you aren't allowed to call a bid 'Muiderberg' if the M isn't exactly a five card suit).
I don't see the truth of South's reasoning that EW 'for certain' can't have a diamond fit. Nothing in the bidding up till then, combined with the hands he has, excludes W from holding five or more diamonds. South's bidding certainly doesn't fall in the SEWOG category, but I'm not sure that the damage to NS is due to EW's infraction.

[AndreSteff]

joostb1, on 2011-January-19, 13:01, said:

Muiderberg means 5M/4+m. The 4+ can be a long suit. Playing in Holland today (MP's) I got KJTxx-10x-KQTxxx, which many players opened 2S.
Actually, I think E is remarkably honest. After the explanation of his bid by W, he could have passed 3D, had S and N not bid and explained afterwards that he thought his hand might be more useful in diamonds, ruffing possible both in spades and hearts and having at least an equal fit in diamonds to that in hearts (you aren't allowed to call a bid 'Muiderberg' if the M isn't exactly a five card suit).
I don't see the truth of South's reasoning that EW 'for certain' can't have a diamond fit. Nothing in the bidding up till then, combined with the hands he has, excludes W from holding five or more diamonds. South's bidding certainly doesn't fall in the SEWOG category, but I'm not sure that the damage to NS is due to EW's infraction.

Well, I must say that I had expected more discussion about wether NS are damaged by the MI at all, or only partly damaged, leading to an adjusted score that includes a percentage of the table result.

[mycroft]

Sure they were. They have a penalty double available for 3C NAT, that they (felt they) couldn't use because 3C was P/C (and I assume that South didn't know what to do over 3C-X-3D-X-p or 3C-X-3D-p-p). I think it's wrong - I think that that hand is screaming for "support partner!", but I also think that the 2S call is crazy aggressive (yes, I do get stolen by preempts. But I rarely go minus in game after a preempt, or when partner doubles after I bid). I might double 3C because if West is the reds, I want to bid 4S, whereas if it's the round suits, my hand isn't as nice, and I might as well try for +200 against +170.

But bad bridge (even "bad in this TDs opinion" bridge) isn't any bar to redress, unless it's totally unreasonable or they're trying to pull the wool over my eyes. They have a penalty double available against a "misfit" 3C, and they were denied the chance to use it by the explanation. Lamford's initial comment about "mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid" seems to apply, so why should I be trying to hurt the non-offenders?

I'll trust lamford about pull to 3H after 3D is doubled - I would think that "well, hearts might be 3-3 instead of the clear 4+-x of diamonds, and even if not, the 5-2 should handle the bad break better than 4-3" would at least be a thought, but again, I don't play this or against this, so what do I know?